Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Actual Innocence Exception to Procedural Bars in State Post-Conviction Proceedings. 97 A.L.R.6th 263 (2014).

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Note, Criminal Procedure — Waiver of Appellate Review of Death Sentences In Arkansas; Standing — Capacity to Litigate Matters of Public Interest in Arkansas, Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181, 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988), 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 569.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Case Notes

Construction.

Because the legislature has declined several opportunities to amend this section in response to the court's interpretation that a writ of habeas corpus will issue only if the commitment was invalid on its face or the committing court lacked jurisdiction, the court's interpretation remains the law. Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421, 938 S.W.2d 843 (1997).

Actual Innocence.

Where appellant gave the police a statement in which he admitted shooting the murder victim, appellant failed to show that DNA testing of blood splatter would have proved that he was actually innocent of the crime. The trial court did not err by denying his petition to vacate or set aside the judgment pursuant to § 16-112-201 et seq. Leaks v. State, 371 Ark. 581, 268 S.W.3d 866 (2007).

A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus who does not allege his actual innocence and proceed under Acts 2001, No. 1780, codified as § 16-112-201 et seq., must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction by the trial court. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Appellant inmate's claims in the petition for writ of habeas corpus that he was innocent and that the evidence was insufficient were not within the purview of the habeas proceeding, as appellant did not invoke Acts 2001, No. 1780, codified as § 16-112-201 et seq.; further, proceedings under Acts 2001, No. 1780 must be filed in the county of conviction, but appellant's petition was filed in the county of his incarceration. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Capital Offenses.

An indictment in a capital case does raise such a presumption against the defendant as to deprive him of the privilege of habeas corpus as a matter of right, so to be entitled to the writ he must rebut the presumption raised against him. Ex parte White, 9 Ark. 222, 9 Ark. 223 (1848) (decision under prior law).

Where there is no subordinate court competent to issue a writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court will issue the writ. Ex parte Robins, 15 Ark. 402 (1855) (decision under prior law).

If the circuit court or judge refuse bail, the Supreme Court, upon proper showing of facts upon which the circuit judge acted, may award certiorari and bring him before it by habeas corpus and admit him to bail or direct the circuit judge to do so. Ex parte Good, 19 Ark. 410 (1858); Ex parte Bird & Bailey, 24 Ark. 275 (1866) (preceding decisions under prior law).

The circuit court has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus and admit to bail in capital cases. Ex parte Kittrel, 20 Ark. 499 (1859) (decision under prior law).

Unless a manifest error in the circuit court appears, the Supreme Court will not reverse its refusal of bail. Ex parte Osborn, 24 Ark. 185 (1866) (decision under prior law).

Early decisions concerning habeas corpus in capital cases were not weakened by subsequent legislation, and the chancellor was without power to issue the writ or grant bail to a person under indictment for a capital offense; only the judge of the circuit court had such authority which could be exercised in term time or vacation. State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Williams, 97 Ark. 243, 133 S.W. 1017 (1911).

Claim of Illegal Sentence.

Appellant's claim that his 60-year sentence was illegal fell within the bounds of a habeas action, as he claimed that he could have been found guilty only of one count of violating § 5-27-602, rather than 30 counts; appellant's claim failed on the merits, however. Pelletier v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 347, 561 S.W.3d 730 (2018).

Denial of Petition.

Where relief sought in habeas corpus petition was of the kind that could be granted pursuant to former Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 (see now Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1), the court properly refused to consider Rule 37 relief when it had already been sought and denied. Miller v. State, 301 Ark. 59, 781 S.W.2d 475 (1989).

In a capital murder case, as defendant failed to show the conviction was invalid on its face or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the trial court properly denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus; defendant's assertion that his guilty plea was invalid should have been raised in a motion for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 as this issue required the kind of factual inquiry that went beyond the facial validity of the commitment. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005).

Where the trial court accepted appellant's plea for capital-felony murder on a Sunday in violation of § 16-10-114, the statutory violation did not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the matter; further, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was not the proper method with which to claim a statutory violation, rather, appellant's argument should have been raised on direct appeal. Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006).

Circuit court did not err in dismissing the inmate's petition for habeas corpus where although the inmate's original judgment and commitment order was erroneous, the sentencing court had jurisdiction to amend the order to reflect the correct statute; the inmate failed to show that commitment was invalid. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007).

Where appellant was denied habeas relief and his appeal was dismissed, he stated no valid reason for the court to grant his motion for reconsideration. Appellant's constitutional challenge arising from the alleged invalidity of his arrest did not result in an invalid conviction and required a factual inquiry that was improper in a habeas proceeding under subdivision (a)(1) of this section; appellant made only a general due process argument that he was unlawfully imprisoned, and cited no authority for the proposition that his sentence was illegal. Russell v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 472 (2009).

Circuit court did not err in denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus because to the extent that appellant would directly challenge his conviction, the sentence that he received for the conviction had since expired; to the extent that appellant would raise the issue of validity of his sentence concerning its use to enhance his life sentence in his prior conviction, he failed to raise a claim that would support relief. Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494 (2011).

Circuit court did not err in denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus because his claims that some of the judgments used to enhance his sentence were invalid did not constitute a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the charge or to the facial validity of the commitment order; therefore, appellant failed to present a claim that would support habeas corpus relief. Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494 (2011).

Circuit court did not err in denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus because although appellant argued that he was still being held by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), even though his conviction was reversed on appeal, the ADC's records did not reflect that appellant was incarcerated pursuant to his conviction; appellant's challenge to the conviction, even if it was valid at the time the petition was filed, was moot because any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy. Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494 (2011).

Denial of writ of habeas corpus was proper, because allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding, none of the claims called into question the trial court's jurisdiction or the validity of the judgment-and-commitment order, and neither the question concerning the validity of the agreement between the petitioner and his attorney for representation nor the assertions of trial error were sufficient to warrant granting the writ. Thomas v. State, 2012 Ark. 79 (2012).

Dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper, because the applicant did not present a claim that could be resolved through a habeas proceeding, when the issue was one concerning an excessive sentence and not an illegal sentence, and the majority of the applicant's claims were assertions of trial error that did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (2012).

Defendant argued that he was not told, prior to entering his guilty plea, that § 16-93-609 would apply to his sentence, however, he failed to show how this allegation would make the judgment against him facially invalid or support his claim that he was illegally detained under subdivision (a)(1) of this section. All claims of ineffective assistance had to be brought under a timely Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition, and a petition for writ of habeas corpus was not a substitute for a timely petition for postconviction relief. Smith v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 360 (2012).

Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged the judgment that imposed an aggregate sentence of 1080 months' imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition, because he failed to provide probable cause that he was illegally detained as required by subdivision (a)(1) of this section and presented only conclusory allegations to support his claim that his sentence was improperly enhanced using an out-of-state conviction. Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (2013).

Habeas corpus relief was not warranted based on an inmate's allegations of a conflict of interest, a coerced confession, speedy-trial violations, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and due process violations because they did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court; moreover, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. In addition, the inmate's claim of incompetency at the time she entered her plea, even if cognizable, was not supported by a factual basis, and her claims that a sentence imposed upon the revocation of probation was an illegal second sentence or that it was illegal due to a speedy trial violation were rejected. Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (2013).

Circuit court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed where appellant offered nothing in his petition to demonstrate that the trial court in his case did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, and he failed to establish that the judgment was invalid on its face. Dunbar v. State, 2015 Ark. 3 (2015).

Appellant inmate's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, trial error, and judicial bias were not within the purview of the habeas statute. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Because appellant inmate failed to challenge the facial validity of the judgment or the circuit court's jurisdiction, his claims of prosecutorial misconduct did not fall within the parameters of the remedy of writ of habeas corpus. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Because the nature of the offense remained the same and an amendment changed only the manner of the alleged commission of the crime, appellant failed to state a claim for habeas relief on the ground of a defective information. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Because petitioner alleged that he was being held according to an invalid conviction and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the circuit court appropriately considered any basis for the writ of habeas corpus that petitioner could have raised outside Acts 2001, No. 1780, as amended by Acts 2005, No. 2250, § 16-112-201 et seq.; however, prosecutorial misconduct was not cognizable as it did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the trial court's jurisdiction, and actual innocence is not cognizable in habeas proceedings that are not brought under § 16-112-201 et seq.Muldrow v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 126, 542 S.W.3d 856 (2018).

After the Arkansas Supreme Court in a Rule 37 appeal had directed dismissal of two of petitioner's three convictions stemming from a jury trial, the circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing petitioner's subsequent petition for a writ of habeas corpus because none of petitioner's arguments provided evidence of probable cause to believe that he was being illegally detained on the remaining delivery conviction; defendant did not establish the circuit court's lack of subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction, his sentence was not facially invalid, he was not being detained for an illegal period of time, and the sentence for the delivery charge was statutorily authorized. A claim that the improper admission of evidence may have contributed to a sentence is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Conley v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 23, 566 S.W.3d 116 (2019).

Inmate's appeal of the dismissal of his habeas petition was dismissed because the inmate's speedy trial, involuntary plea, evidence sufficiency, and ineffective assistance claims were not cognizable, as (1) the writ would not issue to correct errors or irregularities at trial, (2) lack of a speedy trial did not implicate the facial validity of a judgment or the trial court's jurisdiction, (3) a plea claim did not raise an illegal sentence, (4) habeas proceedings were not a means to contest the sufficiency of the evidence, and (5) ineffective assistance had to be raised in a postconviction motion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Bell v. Gibson, 2019 Ark. 127 (2019).

Detention Without Lawful Authority.

The court could not say that the circuit judge's contempt order was invalid on its face or that the judge lacked jurisdiction to enter the order where the circuit court held two prosecuting attorneys in contempt and incarcerated them after they refused to proceed with the jury trial in a criminal case. Johnson v. Johnson, 343 Ark. 186, 33 S.W.3d 492 (2000).

Where a juvenile was not provided with defense counsel at the hearing finding him in criminal contempt and in violation of his Division of Youth Services aftercare plan, the juvenile's due process rights were violated, the trial court's order commitment order was invalid, and the juvenile's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Mainard, 358 Ark. 204, 188 S.W.3d 901 (2004).

Habeas corpus relief was granted to the extent that a trial court imposed drug treatment as a condition of imprisonment because this was an illegal sentence; former § 5-64-401(a)(1)(A)(i) did not authorize this condition when an inmate's probation was revoked. Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (2013).

Effect of Writ.

A writ of habeas corpus is issued in a criminal case only when the prisoner is being detained without lawful authority. Waddle v. Sargent, 313 Ark. 539, 855 S.W.2d 919 (1993).

Where the judgment of conviction and order of commitment were void, but where the petitioner remained charged with capital murder, the granting of a writ of habeas corpus did not mean that the petitioner had to be set free; the prisoner was released from the Arkansas Department of Correction and placed in the custody of the county sheriff to be held on the charge of capital murder. Waddle v. Sargent, 313 Ark. 539, 855 S.W.2d 919 (1993).

Error in Granting Writ.

Where defendant was committed to an alcohol treatment facility pursuant to former § 20-64-709 (see now § 20-64-801 et seq.) and was unable to make her appeal bond, circuit court erred in granting defendant's writ of habeas corpus as defendant was not detained without lawful authority, or imprisoned when by law she was entitled to bail, but had simply failed to make bond and did not petition to have bond reduced though represented by an attorney at all times. City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990).

Trial court's decision granting a writ of habeas corpus was reversed because (1) the trial court did not explicitly find probable cause, as required by subdivision (a)(1) of this section, before moving forward with the remaining habeas corpus procedures, and (2) such a finding was mandatory. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364 (2014).

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; the circuit court failed to follow the mandatory procedures, failed to issue the writ to the State, erroneously granted relief from the underlying commitment, and did not otherwise require the State to provide a return. Rather than vacating the applicant's sentence of life imprisonment and remanding for resentencing, the circuit court first should have made a probable-cause finding. Hobbs v. Hodge, 2015 Ark. 207, 461 S.W.3d 704 (2015).

Jurisdiction.

Inmate's pro se petition seeking release under subsection (a) of this section could not be granted by the circuit court in which he filed his motion for postconviction relief because the inmate was not in custody in that court's jurisdiction. Hill v. State, 2010 Ark. 102 (2010).

Circuit court did not clearly err in denying the prisoner's habeas petition because § 16-93-607(d) did not apply to the prisoner as he was an habitual offender, he committed the offenses that led to the sentence when he was 18 years old, and the life sentence was within the range of sentencing for his rape and kidnapping convictions. Mitchell v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 79, 484 S.W.3d 659 (2016).

Prisoner's challenge to the sentence based on his ineligibility for parole was rejected as the Arkansas Department of Correction's determination that a prisoner was not eligible for parole did not amount to a modification of his sentence or render the sentence imposed illegal on its face. Mitchell v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 79, 484 S.W.3d 659 (2016).

Petition Denied Without Hearing.

Trial court did not err in denying a prisoner's petition for habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing because the prisoner failed to demonstrate that his attempted murder conviction was facially invalid or that the trial court was without jurisdiction. His claim that he was not competent to stand trial could have been raised in the original trial or appeal. Henderson v. State, 2010 Ark. 30 (2010).

Circuit court did not err by failing to conduct a hearing when it denied appellant's writ of habeas corpus petition because appellant failed to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the writ pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of this section; the records of the Arkansas Department of Correction did not reflect that appellant was incarcerated pursuant to his conviction, and appellant's challenge to the conviction, even if it was valid at the time the petition was filed, was moot because any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy. Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 494 (2011).

Right to Maintain.

If, pending an appeal, the restriction is removed and the accused procures his release, he cannot thereafter maintain a proceeding previously begun for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Rubly, 222 Ark. 423, 261 S.W.2d 4 (1953).

A writ of habeas corpus will not be issued as a substitute for post-conviction relief. Rather, the writ of habeas corpus will be issued only when the commitment is invalid on its face or the committing court lacked jurisdiction. Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).

Inmate's claim that the inmate was held without lawful authority as the inmate's sentence of life in prison without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, since the inmate was a juvenile when the inmate's crime was committed and the sentence was mandatory, was cognizable in habeas corpus because it had previously been held that such claims were cognizable and appropriate for the writ. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364 (2014).

Sufficiency of Petition.

If petition for habeas corpus raises no question of jurisdiction of the trial court to try petitioner on the charges of which he was convicted, or as to the regularity of the commitment on which he was being held, the court can grant no relief in habeas corpus proceedings. State ex rel. Williams v. Auten, 211 Ark. 703, 202 S.W.2d 763 (1947); Miller v. State, 301 Ark. 59, 781 S.W.2d 475 (1989).

Where nothing was alleged in the petition that was not or could not have been raised on appeal in the first instance except the allegation of present insanity, defendant was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Mitchell v. State, 233 Ark. 578, 346 S.W.2d 201 (1961).

Because defendant raised no argument that demonstrated a jurisdictional defect in the proceeding against defendant or that defendant's commitment was invalid, defendant did not state a basis to warrant issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under subdivision (a)(1) of this section; consequently, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought. Randolph v. State, 2011 Ark. 510 (2011).

Inmate who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder failed to state a claim for habeas corpus relief based on the murder taking place in a county other than the county of the trial court, because the evidence indicated that the inmate and his codefendant planned the murder and picked the victim up in Craighead County, where the trial was held. Bryant v. May, 2013 Ark. 168 (2013).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 72 and held that petitioner had failed to state a colorable claim for habeas relief, as the same claims concerning his motion in limine for joinder of offenses had been previously addressed and found to be outside the purview of habeas proceedings; petitioner's latest iteration of his claims represented an abuse of the writ. Watts v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 207, 575 S.W.3d 558 (2019).

—Infants.

In deciding contests upon writs of habeas corpus for the custody of infant children, the principles adopted in the chancery court must govern, and no rigid rules to govern the practice have been or can be formulated. Subject to a few general rules, to be taken as a guide, the chancellor must exercise his judgment upon the peculiar circumstances of the case, and act as humanity, respect for the parental affection, and regard for the infant's best interest may prompt; all three should be considered. Neither should be conclusive. Verser v. Ford, 37 Ark. 27 (1881).

On habeas corpus by the father to obtain custody, the proof tended to show that while he was a moral man and worthy to assume the education and control of his child, the advantages to an infant of tender years were with the “adoptive” family. Washaw v. Gimble, 50 Ark. 351, 7 S.W. 389 (1887).

Where there were no allegations of unfitness or findings of fitness of the child's mother or any other person, nor any hearing with respect to the best interest of the child, no previous order conferring custody of the child upon anyone and no delay on the part of the mother in seeking custody of her child, given the natural right of the parent to the custody of her child there was no basis for denial of mother's writ for the custody of her child. Bruce ex rel. Bruce v. Dillahunty, 293 Ark. 479, 739 S.W.2d 522 (1987).

—Probable Cause.

In a habeas corpus hearing, the question is whether there is a showing of probable cause that the petitioner is being detained unlawfully; one is held without lawful authority when it is shown the commitment is invalid on its face or the court lacked jurisdiction. George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (1985).

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is restricted to the questions of whether the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a valid conviction and whether the convicting court had proper jurisdiction; a writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for attacking parole decisions. Baker v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 91, 702 S.W.2d 403 (1986).

Circuit court properly denied inmate leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the habeas corpus petition because he failed to present a colorable cause of action under Ark. R. Civ. P. 72(c); the inmate's pleading did not satisfy the additional requirement under this section that he make a showing of probable cause. Morgan v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 189, 575 S.W.3d 108 (2019).

—Warrant, Order, or Process.

A copy of the warrant, order, or process must accompany the petition, or a legal excuse be shown for the omission; for if the warrant, order, or process shows a valid and legal commitment, the application should be denied. In re Beard, 4 Ark. 9 (1842); Ex parte Royster, 6 Ark. 28 (1845).

Cited: Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989); Tate v. Sharpe, 300 Ark. 126, 777 S.W.2d 215 (1989); Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 13 S.W.3d 143 (2000); Davis v. State, 366 Ark. 401, 235 S.W.3d 902 (2006); Carter v. Norris, 367 Ark. 360, 240 S.W.3d 124 (2006); Mitchael v. State, 2012 Ark. 256 (2012); McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 361 (2012); Murry v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 29 (2013); King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (2013); Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 503 (2015).