The opinion
Cite as 2020 Ark. 391
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-20-219
Opinion Delivered: December 3, 2020
ROMAN CERVANTES
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT
V. [NO. 35CV-20-38]
HONORABLE JODI RAINES
WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR,
DENNIS, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AFFIRMED.
APPELLEE
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Appellant Roman Cervantes appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition
for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101
to -123 (Repl. 2016). Cervantes, who is incarcerated in the county where he filed his
petition, alleged in the petition filed below and in his arguments on appeal that the Arkansas
Department of Correction (ADC) illegally denied him parole. The circuit court denied and
dismissed his petition on the basis that issues surrounding parole eligibility are not cognizable
in habeas proceedings. We affirm.
I. Background
Cervantes alleged in his petition filed in the circuit court that he had been convicted
of failure to appear, a Class C felony, on March 7, 2019, and was sentenced to forty-eight
months’ imprisonment. The sentencing order is not in the record. However, the record
demonstrates that Cervantes appeared before the parole board on September 5, 2019, and
was denied parole for two years. Cervantes appealed the denial of his parole, and the parole
board affirmed the two-year denial on September 30, 2019. Cervantes contends that the
parole board’s actions were illegal and in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-
93-615 in that “a two-year denial is an unauthorized option for a non-discretionary
offender.” Cervantes does not challenge the legality of his sentence of forty-eight months’
imprisonment. The maximum sentence for a Class C felony is ten years’ imprisonment, and
Cervantes’s sentence for failure to appear does not exceed the maximum sentence for that
offense. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-120(c)(1) (Repl. 2016); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-
401(a)(4) (Repl. 2016).
II. Standard of Review
A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless
it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision 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
made. Id.
III. Nature of the Writ
A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its
face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465,
477 S.W.3d 503. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject
matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). A trial court
has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal
statutes. Id. Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his or her actual
2
innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the
judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and show, by affidavit or other
evidence, probable cause to believe that the petitioner is being illegally detained. Ark. Code
Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Unless the 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. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
IV. Parole Eligibility
As stated above, Cervantes argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because the ADC
illegally denied him parole. Parole-eligibility claims are not cognizable in a habeas
proceeding. Finney v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 145, 598 S.W.3d 26. Habeas proceedings do not
extend to issues of parole eligibility and are limited to the questions of whether the petitioner
is in custody pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction and whether the convicting court
had proper jurisdiction. Id. Parole eligibility falls clearly within the domain of the executive
branch––specifically, the ADC––as fixed by statute. Id. A question regarding parole
eligibility is not properly raised in a habeas proceeding because it does not challenge the
circuit court’s jurisdiction or the facial invalidity of the judgment. Id. Cervantes did not
challenge the legality of the sentence or the jurisdiction of the trial court to impose it. In
sum, Cervantes did not meet his burden of establishing probable cause by affidavit or other
evidence that he is detained without lawful authority.
Affirmed.
Roman Cervantes, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3