Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-115 (2026)
Discharge, remand, admission to bail, or other order — Costs
The judge before whom the writ is returned, after hearing the matter, both upon the return and any other evidence, shall either discharge or remand the petitioner, admit the prisoner to bail, or make such order as may be proper. He or she shall adjudge the costs of the proceeding, including the charge for transporting the prisoner, to be paid as shall seem right. The payment may be enforced by attachment or otherwise by the court to which the proceedings are returned.
History. Crim. Code, § 388; Acts 1871, No. 49, § 1 [388], p. 255; C. & M. Dig., § 5115; Pope's Dig., § 6378; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-1730.
Case Notes
Determination.
The writ of habeas corpus should be determined as soon as possible. Wright v. Johnson, 5 Ark. 687 (1844).
If the prisoner is held by process, the judge or court can, on writ of habeas corpus, only inquire into the validity of the process of its face. If it is issued by a court having jurisdiction of the crime charged, and is regular on its face, the prisoner will be remanded to custody; but if the sentence is a nullity or the court without jurisdiction to commit for the matter charged, or it does not charge a crime for which he could be held in custody, then he should be released. Ex parte Jackson, 45 Ark. 158 (1885); 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 Perdue, 58 Ark. 285, 24 S.W. 423 (1893); Ex parte Adams, 60 Ark. 93, 28 S.W. 1086 (1894); Ex parte Foote, 70 Ark. 12, 65 S.W. 706 (1901).
Where a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is in custody under process regular on its face, nothing will be inquired into except the jurisdiction of the court whence the process came. Rowland v. Rogers, 199 Ark. 1041, 137 S.W.2d 246 (1940).
Effect of Writ.
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).
Writ Granted.
Circuit court erred by denying appellant juvenile's petition for writ of habeas corpus; because he was only fourteen years old when he committed capital-murder and aggravated-robbery, his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VIII. On review, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued the writ pursuant to this section. Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175, 426 S.W.3d 906 (2013).
Cited: Hobbs v. Hodge, 2015 Ark. 207, 461 S.W.3d 704 (2015).