Howard Jones v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
07-569
Opinion Delivered
HOWARD JONES
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
September 13, 2007
PRO SE MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN
COUNTY, LCV 2007-11, HON.
ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 1979, appellant Howard Jones entered a plea of guilty to theft of property and two
counts of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty years’ imprisonment. On February 1, 2007, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro
se petition for writ of habeas corpus. As grounds for the writ, appellant contended that the
judgment of conviction in his criminal case should be vacated because the state failed to enforce
a plea agreement whereby he was to be eligible for parole after serving one-third of the sentence
imposed. The court dismissed the petition, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court from the
order. He now asks that counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal. We need not consider
the motion as it is clear that the appeal is without merit. As appellant could not succeed on
appeal, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot.
This court has consistently held that an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief
will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue
v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920
S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per
curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam).
It is well settled that unless a petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or
that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas
corpus should issue. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990) (per curiam). The
petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction and
make a "showing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally
detained. Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 (1987); see Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d
478 (1989), see also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).
In 1994, appellant raised the same ground for relief in an earlier petition for writ of
habeas corpus. We affirmed the order of dismissal. Jones v. State, CR 94-794 (Ark. Dec. 12,
1994) (per curiam). As we noted at that time, a habeas corpus proceeding in state court is
unavailable for challenging parole matters. Blevins v. Norris, 291 Ark. 70, 722 S.W.2d 573
(1987). Habeas corpus proceedings are limited to questions of whether the petitioner is in
custody pursuant to a facially valid judgment of conviction obtained in a court with appropriate
jurisdiction, and parole eligibility issues are not within the purview of the remedy. Bargo v.
Lockhart, 279 Ark. 180, 650 S.W.2d 227 (1983); see also Kozal v. Board of Correction, 310
Ark. 648, 840 S.W.2d 164 (1992) (per curiam). As appellant’s sole claim for relief in the habeas
petition failed to demonstrate that the judgment in his criminal case was invalid on its face or that
the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the court did not err when it dismissed the petition.
-2-
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
-3-
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.
