Doyle A. Jones v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­411  Opinion Delivered  DOYLE A. JONES  Appellant  November 29, 2007  PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT  COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,  CR 2003­850, HON. KIM M. SMITH,  JUDGE  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  AFFIRMED.  PER CURIAM  Appellant Doyle A. Jones is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction.  In 2006, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Washington County Circuit Court that  was denied.  He now brings this appeal, claiming error by the court in denying his petition.  As the  petition was properly dismissed, we affirm the order denying relief.  A jury found appellant guilty of arson and sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment in the  Arkansas Department of Correction.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  Jones  v. State, CACR 04­632 (Ark. App. Mar. 16, 2005).  Appellant then filed in the trial court a pro se  petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 that was denied.  Appellant failed to  perfect an appeal to this court, and his motion for rule on clerk was denied.  Jones v. State, CR 06­  297 (Ark. Apr. 20, 2006) (per curiam).  Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of that order was  denied.  Jones v. State, CR 06­297 (Ark. June 22, 2006) (per curiam).  Appellant also filed additional  pleadings in the trial court requesting that the record be lodged.  We upheld the order denying that relief.  Jones v. State, CR 06­357 (Ark. Sept. 28, 2006) (per curiam).  On October 23, 2006, appellant filed a petition requesting habeas corpus relief in the trial  court.  The petition requested relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16­112­201–16­112­207 (Repl.  2006), but cited code sections not in existence as the specific basis for the petition.  The petition  referenced actual innocence and DNA evidence, but presented arguments and requested relief based  upon sufficiency of the evidence at trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct,  speedy­trial violations, and other issues properly addressed on direct appeal or through a Rule 37.1  petition. The petition did not appear to be grounded upon any claims concerning jurisdiction or facial  invalidity of the judgment.  Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed  to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed  pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001.  Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam).  Appellant is not, and was not at the time the petition was filed, incarcerated in Washington County.  As the State argues in its brief, the trial court would have lacked jurisdiction to consider any habeas  petition other than one under Act 1780.  Act 1780 was amended by Act 2250 of 2005, effective August 12, 2005.  As revised, Act  1780 contains a number of predicate requirements to be met before a circuit court can order any  relief.  Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006)  (per  curiam).  In particular, as  concerns this case, section 16­112­202 provides the form that a motion for relief under the act must  follow, and, in subsection (1), states that the motion must be for testing of specific evidence that was  secured as a result of the conviction challenged.  Section 16­112­202(6) further indicates that the  petitioner  must  identify  a  theory  of  defense  that  is  not  inconsistent  with  an  affirmative  defense ­2­  presented at the trial and that would establish the actual innocence of the petitioner.  Appellant’s  petition did not identify any specific evidence to be tested or a theory of defense.  As a request for  relief under Act 1780, appellant’s petition also failed.  As evidenced both in the petition and his brief to this court, appellant clearly believes that he  is entitled to use a habeas proceeding as another means to contest rulings during the trial and in his  Rule 37.1 petition proceeding.  He is mistaken.  Any such challenges should have been raised on  direct appeal or in an appeal of a petition under Rule 37.1, and Act 1780 does not provide a substitute  for  those  remedies.  See  Graham  v.  State,  358  Ark.  296,  188  S.W.3d  893  (2004)  (per  curiam)  (decision under prior law).  Because appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus did not comply  with the procedural requirements of our statutes, the trial court did not err in denying relief.  Affirmed. ­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.