Carl Prince/Qadosh v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-78
Opinion Delivered
CARL PRINCE/QADOSH
Appellant
January 15, 2009
PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, CV 2006-656]
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Appellee
PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED;
PETITION FOR MANDAMUS MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Carl Prince/Qadosh, who is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department
of Correction, filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus that was
dismissed. Appellant lodged an appeal of that order in this court and we dismissed the appeal on the
basis that appellant is no longer incarcerated in Jefferson County and that circuit court cannot effect
the relief requested. Prince/Qadosh v. Norris, 08-78 (Ark. Oct. 23, 2008) (per curiam). Appellant
filed a petition for rehearing on the dismissal of the appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus in
which he seeks to compel the appellee to return appellant to Jefferson County.
In his petition for rehearing, appellant contends we erred in dismissing his appeal based upon
the Department of Correction’s transfer of appellant to another county. He argues that to do so
would be unfair, that the decision violates the Arkansas Constitution’s prohibition of suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus in Article 2, § 11, that the holding is in conflict with this court’s
constitutional power to issue the writ, and that Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-106(c) (Repl.
2006) may conceivably apply to the situation. Appellant requests a writ of mandamus in conjunction
with his claims in the petition for rehearing.
We note that appellant does not assert any facts that would support his allegations (1) that
he was transferred by the Department of Correction with the intent to circumvent his pursuit of the
writ, and (2) that the transfer took place only after appellant’s petition had been considered in the
circuit court and the appeal of the circuit court’s order had been lodged in this court. We do not,
however, reach the merits of appellant’s claims in his petition for rehearing because a cursory review
of the petition filed in circuit court provides an additional basis for dismissal of the appeal.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, appellant based his grounds for the writ upon his
self-representation at trial. He argued that he had not effectively waived his right to counsel,
asserting that the trial court lost jurisdiction as a result of that error and that the judgment was
defective on its face because it does not indicate appellant was represented by counsel.
The burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus petition to establish that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for
a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797
(2006) (per curiam). The 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. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798-799. Appellant failed to make the requisite showing
because he failed to plead cognizable grounds for the writ.
An accused is entitled to represent himself provided that he knowingly and intelligently
forgoes his right to counsel and is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom
protocol. Jarrett v. State, 371 Ark. 100, 263 S.W.3d 538 (2007). The judgment was not invalid on
-2-
its face because it indicated that appellant acted as his own attorney; an appellant may have the right
to represent himself. Appellant’s claim that his waiver was not valid could have been raised on
direct appeal. See Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33, 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000); Oliver v. State, 323 Ark.
743, 918 S.W.2d 690 (1996). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity
to retry his case, and is not a substitute for postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219
S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). A due process violation as claimed by appellant is the type of
factual issue that should have been addressed through a direct appeal. See id. In fact, this court has
previously affirmed the denial of habeas relief to appellant on the basis that a similar petition with
like arguments had no merit. Prince v. State, 01-894 (Ark. Feb. 21, 2002) (per curiam).
As noted in our previous opinion on this appeal, an appeal of the denial of postconviction
relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be
permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Lukach v. State, 369
Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam). Because appellant’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus did not state a claim cognizable in a habeas proceeding, our dismissal of the appeal was not
in error, regardless of appellant’s challenges to our previous holding, and we deny the petition for
rehearing. The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore moot.
Petition for rehearing denied; petition for writ of mandamus 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.
