{ "id": 3695258, "name": "Sanders M. CARTER v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction", "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. Norris", "decision_date": "2006-09-28", "docket_number": "CR 06-296", "first_page": "360", "last_page": "364", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "367 Ark. 360" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "240 S.W.3d 124" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "72 S.W 568", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1903, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "an incorrect title of an official issuing an arrest warrant did not void the warrant" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ark. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1507884 ], "year": 1903, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "an incorrect title of an official issuing an arrest warrant did not void the warrant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/71/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ark. App. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140231 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "sentence proper although judgment and commitment order failed to state all offenses included in revocation of probation as defendant was aware of the State's intention to include all offenses" }, { "parenthetical": "sentence proper although judgment and commitment order failed to state all offenses included in revocation of probation as defendant was aware of the State's intention to include all offenses" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/90/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ark. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 243575 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "appellant owed $30,000 fine omitted from the judgment and commitment order but pronounced in open court" }, { "parenthetical": "appellant owed $30,000 fine omitted from the judgment and commitment order but pronounced in open court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/338/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 Ark. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902464 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/307/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 Ark. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3033748 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/364/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 Ark. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907758 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" }, { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/316/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ark. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 130718 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/339/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-112-103", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Ark. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6143536 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/6/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 Ark. 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1159690 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "330-31" }, { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/352/0324-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 Ark. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1404490 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/350/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ark. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5367542 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/356/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 Ark. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893775 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/295/0218-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 478, "char_count": 7400, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.415786740496147e-07, "percentile": 0.8005049715253669 }, "sha256": "a9567617dc475aa66b920c640e4e97583e902f490d53fd6b781a940035eb92e8", "simhash": "1:5b49a19e12fbd9a8", "word_count": 1231 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:21.310389+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sanders M. CARTER v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn 1987, Sanders M. Carter was convicted by a jury of rape, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and burglary, and was sentenced to life plus forty years\u2019 imprisonment. We affirmed. Carter v. State, 295 Ark. 218, 748 S.W.2d 127 (1988). Appellant committed these crimes on November 18,1986. However, the judgment and commitment order listed the date of the offenses as November 18, 1987.\nSubsequently, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition and this court affirmed. Carter v. State, CR 87-209 (Ark. Oct. 16, 1989) (per curiam). In 1990, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied the petition. We dismissed the appeal as having no merit. Carter v. State, CR 90-187 (Ark. Nov. 5, 1990) (per curiam). Next, in 2004, appellant filed a petition for scientific testing pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. The trial court denied the petition as appellant failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody. This court affirmed. Carter v. State, CR 03-148 (Ark. Feb. 19, 2004) (per curiam).\nIn 2005, appellant filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking to set aside his judgment and commitment order. Therein, appellant claimed that he had no formal notice \u201cby the presentment of a felony information or an indictment by grand jury that he was on trial for offenses occuring [sic] on the date November 18, 1987.\u201d Appellant argued that he was being wrongfully imprisoned pursuant to a judgment and commitment order, filed on June 5, 1987, for \u201ccriminal offenses that had not yet been consummated by the petitioner[.]\u201d The trial court denied the petition, and appellant, proceeding pro se, has lodged this appeal of that order.\nWe do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court\u2019s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Flores v. State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).\nWe first note that in the State\u2019s brief to this court, the State cites two unpublished decisions by this court in support of particular propositions. We have long held that \u201c[a]n opinion which qualifies as one not designated for publication is written primarily for the parties and their attorneys .... Once again, we state that nonpublished opinions will not be considered as authority and should not be cited to this court.\u201d Weatherford v. State, 352 Ark. 324, 330-31, 101 S.W.3d 227, 232 (2003), quoting Aaron v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 424, 644 S.W.2d 301 (1982). (Emphasis ours.)\nWe continue to adhere to this concept as stated in Weather-ford and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2. Further, litigants without access to our unpublished opinions, via electronic methods or in-person visits to this court\u2019s library, are placed at a disadvantage when citing authority to this court due to the lack of widespread and complete access to unpublished opinions. However, this court will continue to consider publication of unpublished opinions when requested to do so by motion setting forth good cause why an unpublished opinion should be published.\nThe principal issue in a habeas corpus proceeding is whether the petitioner is detained without lawful authority. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-112-103 (1987); Fullerton v. McCord, 339 Ark. 45, 2 S.W.3d 775 (1999). A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 577, 873 S.W.2d 524, 525 (1994). Unless a petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a \u201cshowing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe\u201d he is illegally detained. Section 16-112-103(a). See also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).\nIn the instant matter, there is no question but that appellant committed the crimes against the victim in 1986 rather than 1987. The felony information filed by the prosecutor contained the correct date of the crimes. Appellant\u2019s direct appeal and numerous petitions for postconviction relief indicated the correct date. Thus, it is apparent that the judgment and commitment order contained a mere clerical error.\nOur case law is replete with examples of a clerical error in a judgment and commitment order. Such clerical errors have not prevented enforcement of the judgment and commitment order. See, e.g., McCuen v. State, 338 Ark. 631, 999 S.W.2d 682 (1999) (appellant owed $30,000 fine omitted from the judgment and commitment order but pronounced in open court). See also Willis v. State, 90 Ark. App. 281, 205 S.W.3d 189 (2005) (sentence proper although judgment and commitment order failed to state all offenses included in revocation of probation as defendant was aware of the State\u2019s intention to include all offenses). Clerical errors also have not prevented other legal documents from effectuating the intended result.\nAs clerical errors do not speak the truth, courts have the power to enter an amended judgment and commitment order nunc pro tunc to correct an erroneous judgment. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b); McCuen, supra; Willis, supra. Here, appellant was aware at all times that he was being tried for crimes he committed in 1986. He had been put on notice by the State of the correct dates for the crimes and was not prejudiced by his trial for the 1986 crimes. This case presents the exact situation where a clerical error may have been corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. Clerical errors of this type do not entitle appellant to a writ of habeas corpus. See Fullerton, supra.\nAppellant\u2019s petition has failed to show that he was being detained without lawful authority. Appellant was not tried for crimes that he had not yet \u201cconsummated.\u201d A mere clerical error in the offense dates stated in the judgment and commitment order does not negate the jurisdiction of the trial court as the clerical error does not speak the truth. Appellant failed to prove that the judgment and commitment order was invalid on its face or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Thus, appellant did not establish any cause to conclude that a petition for writ of habeas corpus should issue. We find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nSee, e.g., Fullerton, supra (petition for writ of habeas corpus denied where defendant\u2019s incorrect initial in extradition documents did not prevent positive identification of defendant), and Douglass v. Stahl, 71 Ark. 236, 72 S.W 568 (1903) (an incorrect title of an official issuing an arrest warrant did not void the warrant).", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant, pro se.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sanders M. CARTER v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction\nCR 06-296\n240 S.W.3d 124\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 28, 2006\nAppellant, pro se.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0360-01", "first_page_order": 384, "last_page_order": 388 }