Opinion
09-423
Opinion Delivered October 1, 2009
Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Belated Appeal [Circuit Court of Chicot County, CV 2007-48, Hon. Robert Bynum Gibson, Judge], Motion Denied.
Petitioner Frank Watts II filed in this court a motion for belated appeal of an order dismissing petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus in Chicot County Circuit Court, seeking relief from a judgment entered in Pulaski County. We treated the motion as a motion for rule on clerk because the notice of appeal was timely, and denied the motion. Watts v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 370 (unpublished per curiam). Petitioner has now filed a motion in which he requests that this court reconsider that decision.
In his motion, petitioner alleges error, contending that jurisdiction remains in Chicot County Circuit Court over the matter, that the change in his custody did not defeat that jurisdiction. Petitioner further contends that the circuit court could grant the relief sought. Petitioner also alleges error as to our statement that the petition for the writ did not clearly identify whether the writ was sought under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas. His claim as to that alleged error does not further identify the basis for the writ sought in the petition, but he contends that the order appealed was clearly identified and the motion was timely under a criminal rule of appellate procedure. Petitioner next alleges error in our treatment of the motion as one for rule on clerk, contending that the motion was timely filed in this court and that the appeal was not a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. Finally, petitioner alleges that he is entitled to relief as a matter of right. In this claim, petitioner contends that the circuit clerk was required to transmit the record to our clerk and that the circuit clerk's failure to do so established good cause for petitioner's failure to conform to the rules of procedure.
Petitioner's last claim in the motion for reconsideration is simply an attempt to have this court reach the merits of his motion for belated appeal. In our previous opinion, we did not reach the merits of the motion because we held that the circuit court no longer had jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Only petitioner's first two grounds allege error that would challenge the basis for the decision, and those claims are without merit.
Petitioner bases his argument upon authority grounded in jurisdiction through the federal habeas statutes, which are not applicable here. Petitioner does not identify other authority under which the circuit court might have granted relief. Petitioner does, however, also assert that personal jurisdiction should follow the custodian rather than the prisoner, and that we therefore erred in concluding that the circuit court in this case no longer had jurisdiction to release him from custody. While the petition may have been initially filed within the circuit court's jurisdiction, and the circuit court may have retained subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, the circuit court no longer had personal jurisdiction to issue and make returnable a writ because petitioner was no longer incarcerated within the court's jurisdiction. See Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam). The writ could no longer be directed to a custodian with immediate physical custody of the prisoner in order to have the prisoner brought to the Chicot County Circuit Court so that the habeas proceedings might continue.
Because the circuit court could not effect the relief requested in the petition for the writ, any further proceedings were moot. There was therefore no error in denial of petitioner's request to proceed with an appeal. See id. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Motion denied.