Cite as 2016 Ark. 67
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CV-15-874
Opinion Delivered February 18, 2016
MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY
V. CIRCUIT COURT AND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, [40CV-15-54]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION HONORABLE JODY RAINES
APPELLEE DENNIS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 1990, appellant Michael W. Williams was found guilty by a jury of murder in the
first degree, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of
imprisonment of life, twenty years, and six years, respectively. We affirmed. Williams v.
State, 304 Ark. 509, 802 S.W.2d 346 (1991).
In 2015, Williams, who is incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of
Correction in Lincoln County, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln
County Circuit Court.1 The petition was dismissed, and Williams brings this appeal.
A circuit court’s grant or denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court’s
findings are clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A finding
is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court is
1
As of the date of this opinion, Williams remains incarcerated in Lincoln County.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 67
left, after reviewing the entire evidence, with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed. Id.
Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his actual innocence
and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas must plead either the facial invalidity
of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court 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). The burden is on the petitioner in proceedings for a writ of
habeas corpus 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. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
Williams argued in the habeas proceeding that the judgment in his case was illegal
on its face because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to sentence him to life
imprisonment for first-degree murder. As authority for the claim, he relied on our decision
in Hale v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 405, 443 S.W.3d 533.
In Hale, the judgment provided that Hale was sentenced to life with the possibility
of parole after one-third of his sentence was served. We held that the trial court exceeded
its statutory authority to impose the sentence on the ground that the sentencing statute in
effect at the time Hale committed the offense did not allow for parole when the defendant
was sentenced to a life term. Hale, 2014 Ark. 405, at 5, 443 S.W.3d at, 535.
Williams attached to his habeas petition a copy of an interoffice memorandum from
the records supervisor at the unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction where he is
incarcerated that listed his sentence as “life with parole.” However, he also appended to
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 67
the petition a copy of the judgment in his case that provides that he is sentenced to life
imprisonment and that portion of the trial transcript wherein the court pronounced a
sentence of life. Neither the judgment nor the transcript mentions parole.
First-degree murder was a Class Y felony under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-
10-102(4)(c) (1987) when Williams committed that offense. In accordance with Arkansas
Code Annotated section 5-4-401(a)(1) (1987), Williams was subject at that time to a
sentence of not less than ten years and not more than forty years, or life. Williams was not
eligible for parole pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-607(c)(1) and (d)
(1987). The fact that an error was made on a document generated by the Records Supervisor
did not render the judgment invalid on its face. The face of the judgment entered when
Williams was convicted did not provide for parole as the judgment in Hale provided, and it
was not illegal on its face. Accordingly, Hale did not apply.
With respect to Williams’s assertion that the court in his case lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the
subject matter in controversy between the parties. Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144, at 6, 459
S.W.3d 302, 306. A court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction if it cannot hear a matter under
any circumstances and is wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought. Id. Williams offered
no grounds on which it could be said that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his criminal
case.
Because the circuit court did not err when it declined to grant a writ of habeas corpus
on the allegations raised by Williams, we affirm the court’s order. We also find that
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. 67
Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel is moot because there is no merit to the
appeal.
Affirmed; motion moot.
Michael W. Williams, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Priest, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4