Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 190 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-26-273 Opinion Delivered: November 12, 2026 MARTINOUS MOORE APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 40CV-25-136] DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, HONORABLE JODI RAINES ARKANSAS DIVISION OF DENNIS, JUDGE CORRECTION APPELLEE AFFIRMED. NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice Appellant Martinous Moore is a capital murderer. Nearly two decades ago, Moore was convicted of murdering Brady Alexander. He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus. In his writ petition, Moore argues that he is entitled to relief because he was not rearraigned after his criminal information was amended. The circuit court rejected that claim, and we affirm. 1. In April 2006, Moore and his fellow codefendants, Marques Tavron and Gavino Mazurek, conspired to rob Alexander. Moore v. State, 372 Ark. 579, 581, 279 S.W.3d 69, 72 (2008). On the night of the murder, Moore, Tavron, and Mazurek lured Alexander to a Waffle House parking lot in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Moore then shot and killed Alexander. Id. at 581–82, 279 S.W.3d at 72. Moore was tried and convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 480 months. Id. at 580, 279 S.W.3d at 71. This court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence on appeal. See id. Now, decades later, Moore claims that his conviction violated due process because he was not rearraigned when his criminal information was amended. He concedes that, in June 2006, he was properly arraigned and pleaded not guilty to capital murder and kidnapping. But he argues that he should have been rearraigned in October 2006 when his criminal information was “materially altered” to include aggravated battery. The circuit court rejected that claim and denied his petition. 2. Moore’s claims are not cognizable in habeas, and the circuit court rightly rejected them. To proceed in habeas, a petitioner “must establish probable cause to believe that he [or she] is detained without lawful authority, is imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail, or actual innocence.” Farrakhan v. Payne, 2026 Ark. 144, at 1–2 (quoting Grady v. Payne, 2026 Ark. 124, at 1) (cleaned up). Moore fails to meet that standard. Claims concerning a lack of arraignment are, at most, trial errors that Moore should have raised on direct appeal. Noble v. State, 2019 Ark. 284, at 3, 585 S.W.3d 671, 673. Therefore, Moore’s petition fails. Affirmed. Special Justice CORY COX joins. WEBB, J., not participating. Martinous Moore, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen.; by: Mallory Wood, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2