Willie G. Davis, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
06-825
Opinion Delivered
March 8, 2007
v.
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
LINCOLN COUNTY, LCV 2006-27,
HON. ROBERT HOLDEN WYATT, JR.,
JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
MOTION DENIED.
WILLIE G. DAVIS, JR.
Appellant
PER CURIAM
Appellant Willie G. Davis, an inmate in the custody of the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County Circuit Court that was
denied. Appellant lodged an appeal of that order in this court and filed motions requesting
permission to file a belated appellant’s brief and permission to file a brief with an extended
argument. We dismissed the appeal. Davis v. State, 06-825 (Ark. Nov. 16, 2006) (per curiam).
Appellant previously filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of that decision, which was denied.
Davis v. State, 06-825 (Ark. Jan. 25, 2007) (per curiam). Once again, appellant brings a pro se
motion for reconsideration of our decision to dismiss the appeal.
Appellant raises essentially the same arguments as in his previous motion. Although he
attempts to clarify some of those arguments, they are no more persuasive than in his previous
motion. Appellant again argues that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (1987) is impermissibly vague
and unconstitutional. He asserts that this court may not interpret the statute under Ark. Const. art.
4, and that we must therefore overturn all prior cases interpreting the statute.
Article 4 of our constitution establishes the executive, judicial and legislative divisions of
governmental authority and provides for separation of powers as among the divisions established.
Appellant’s contention notwithstanding, by its very nature, the judicial division is charged with
interpreting the statutes enacted by the legislative division of government. It is elementary that the
courts are endowed with that power.
We do not agree with appellant’s assertion that, by providing that a petitioner must plead
either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing, by affidavit or other
evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained, our previous cases add additional
requirements beyond those clearly and plainly provided in the statute itself . See Wallace v. Willock,
301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 478 (1989); Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).
We decline to overrule those cases.
Nor will we strike down section 16-112-103 as unconstitutionally vague and eliminate a
remedy well-established in our legal system, as appellant urges. As already addressed in our
previous decisions, we do not agree with appellant’s contention that the statute does not clearly state
its requirements, and the allegations in this motion are no more persuasive that those previously
argued.
As noted in both previous opinions, appellant’s petition did not state claims that would
support issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant has stated no reason to revisit our original
decision on this issue, and we therefore once again deny his motion for reconsideration.
Motion denied.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
