Opinion
No. 92-1093
Opinion delivered October 19, 1992
1. APPEAL ERROR — REVIEW OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIAL — DIRECT APPEAL OR CERTIORARI. — The appellate court did not agree that denial of habeas corpus could adequately be addressed only by way of direct appeal; the proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. 2. HABEAS CORPUS — WHEN GRANTED. — 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. 3. CERTIORARI — CERTIORARI DENIED WHERE DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS CORRECT. — Writ of certiorari to review the denial of a writ of habeas corpus was denied where appellant was attempting to challenge appellee's method of crediting "good time" in computing the length of her incarceration.
Pro Se Petition for Writ of Certiorari; denied.
Appellant, pro se.
Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Senior Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Patricia Kozal seeks review of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus in this petition for a writ of certiorari. Her original complaint alleged that Department of Correction authorities were not giving her proper credit for "good time" she has earned and will earn during her incarceration. As a result of the improper computation she alleges she will be required to serve a longer term than is lawful. She first filed her complaint in the Federal Court which stayed proceedings pending exhaustion of State remedies. She then filed a petition seeking the habeas corpus writ in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. This petition was denied and forms the basis for review.
[1-3] The State argues the writ should be denied as Ms. Kozal has an adequate remedy by way of a direct appeal. We cannot agree that denial of habeas corpus may adequately be addressed only by way of a direct appeal. The proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990); Taylor v. Moore, 99 Ark. 412, 138 S.W. 634 (1911). It is clear, however, that 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. This is not such a case, and thus the writ of certiorari must be denied. There may be other ways of addressing the relief sought here, such as, for example, by declaratory judgment, but they are not before us.
Petition denied.