George Aydelotte v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-758
Opinion Delivered
October 30, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF BRIEF TIME [CIRCUIT COURT OF
HOT SPRING COUNTY, CV 2008-88,
HON. CHRIS E. WILLIAMS, JUDGE]
GEORGE AYDELOTTE
Appellant
v.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
In 2008, appellant George Aydelotte filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county
in which he was incarcerated. In the petition, appellant alleged that the State of Mississippi had
violated his right to speedy trial on certain criminal charges filed against him in that state. The trial
court denied the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order.
Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief.
After filing the motion, appellant tendered his brief to this court. The appeal is dismissed and the
motion is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief 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).
Unless a petitioner can demonstrate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the
commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for finding that a writ of habeas corpus should
issue. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). The petitioner must
plead either facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and make a “showing, by affidavit or other
evidence, [of] probable cause to believe” that he is illegally detained.
Ark. Code Ann. §
16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006); Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).
In the petition filed in the circuit court below, appellant made no allegations regarding his
Arkansas convictions and failed to establish that he was entitled to habeas relief as to sentences that
were imposed in Arkansas. His petition addressed only criminal charges in Tunica County,
Mississippi, and the circuit court was without jurisdiction to address any criminal matters pending
in another state.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
Danielson, J., not participating.
-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.
