Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-101 (2026)

Case Notes

Error in Granting Writ.

In a capital murder case, a circuit court erred by granting habeas corpus relief to an applicant because it did not make a specific finding of probable cause or otherwise conduct other proceedings required by the habeas corpus statutes. Hobbs v. Hodge, 2015 Ark. 207, 461 S.W.3d 704 (2015).

Hearing.

There is no requirement that a habeas corpus hearing be given any petitioner regardless of the content of the petition. George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (1985).

Scope of Writ.

The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. Ark. Indus. Co. v. Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3 S.W. 631 (1886); Ex parte Brandon, 49 Ark. 143, 4 S.W. 452 (1886); Ex parte Barnett, 51 Ark. 215, 10 S.W. 492 (1888); In re Burrow v. Cross, 55 Ark. 275, 18 S.W. 170 (1892); Ex parte Foote, 70 Ark. 12, 65 S.W. 706 (1901).

Validity of judgment of conviction for violating a statute can be tested only by appeal. State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Byles, 93 Ark. 612, 126 S.W. 94 (1910), writ of error, Byles v. Arkansas, 225 U.S. 717, 32 S. Ct. 836, 56 L. Ed. 1270 (1912).

The action of a chief of police in refusing bail for insufficient sureties is not reviewable on habeas corpus. Ex parte Johnston, 99 Ark. 201, 137 S.W. 803 (1911).

The habeas corpus writ is granted only when a person is detained without lawful authority or imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail. Kozal v. Board of Corr., 310 Ark. 648, 840 S.W.2d 164 (1992).

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable by habeas corpus. McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (1992).

A writ of habeas corpus will not issue to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (1992).

Writ of habeas corpus would issue when a commitment was invalid on its face or when the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to enter or modify the sentence; the trial court, not the juvenile court, had jurisdiction and the mere detention of defendant in a juvenile facility did not give the juvenile court jurisdiction such that, because no juvenile proceedings had commenced against defendant, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings initiated against him upon the filing of the information charging him as an adult. Morgan v. Norris, 355 Ark. 678, 144 S.W.3d 243 (2004).

Writ Denied.

Appellant sentenced to 540 months' incarceration for manufacturing a controlled substance, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and failure to appear was not entitled to proceed with an appeal of the decision denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to §§ 16-112-101 to 16-112-123, because his allegations did not establish that the commitment was facially invalid; and his ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims were not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court was not without jurisdiction to accept appellant's guilty plea for the charges of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, as it was not a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 361 (2012).

Trial court did err in denying appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to §§ 16-112-101 to 16-101-123, because he did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of a defective information. Murry v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 29 (2013).

Trial court correctly held that a habeas petition was not properly addressed to it where, at the time the prisoner filed the petition, he was incarcerated in another county, and thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Leach v. State, 2017 Ark. 176, 518 S.W.3d 670 (2017).

Written Findings.

Circuit court committed no error if it did not make written findings to support its decision denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the statutes relating to habeas-corpus proceedings that were not filed under Acts 2001, No. 1780, contained no such requirement. Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494 (2011).

Cited: Prince v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 118 (8th Cir. 1992).