Cite as 2014 Ark. 45
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-13-424
ROY E. DAVIS Opinion Delivered January 30, 2014
APPELLANT
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
V. OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
40LCV-13-5]
RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
APPELLEE JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 1988, a jury found appellant Roy E. Davis guilty of first-degree murder, and he was
sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. This court affirmed. Davis v. State, 319
Ark. 460, 892 S.W.2d 472 (1995).
In 2013, appellant filed in the Lincoln County Circuit Court, the county in which he is
incarcerated, a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 The circuit court denied the petition
by written order, and appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from that order. Now before us
is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief.
We dismiss the appeal, and the motion is moot as it is clear from the record that appellant
could not prevail on appeal. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, including an appeal
from an order that denied a petition for habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward
where it is clear that the appeal is without merit. Glaze v. State, 2013 Ark. 458 (per curiam).
1
As of the date of this opinion, appellant remains incarcerated in Lincoln County.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 45
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. Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (per
curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege actual innocence and proceed under
Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas must additionally 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); Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (per curiam). A circuit court’s denial of
habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Justus v. Hobbs,
2013 Ark. 149 (per curiam).
In the petition, appellant contended that his sentence is unconstitutional because the trial
court admitted his prior juvenile-delinquency adjudication during the sentencing phase as a basis
for sentencing him as a habitual offender. We do not address whether appellant stated a
cognizable claim for habeas relief as it is apparent from our review of the record in appellant’s
direct appeal that four prior felony convictions, not juvenile-delinquency adjudications, were
used in sentencing appellant as a habitual offender.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
Roy Davis, pro se appellant.
No response.
2