Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 189 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-26-80 Opinion Delivered: November 12, 2026 ROOSEVELT ABERNATHY APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 40CV-40-116] DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, HONORABLE JODI RAINES ARKANSAS DIVISION OF DENNIS, JUDGE CORRECTION APPELLEE AFFIRMED. CODY HILAND, Associate Justice In June 1982, a Pulaski County jury found appellant Roosevelt Abernathy guilty of capital murder and first-degree battery after he broke into a home, shot Janice Martin three times, causing her to lose an eye, and shot and killed Terri Sue Bradley. Abernathy was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and this court affirmed. Abernathy v. State, 278 Ark. 250, 644 S.W.2d 590 (1983). On September 20, 2024, Abernathy filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016) in the county where he is incarcerated. In his petition, Abernathy alleged that (1) his convictions were invalid because the State failed to prove burglary as the underlying felony supporting his capital-murder conviction; (2) he was incompetent to represent himself and was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) he was denied a fundamentally fair proceeding under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in which the trial court could have reviewed his mandatory life sentence. The circuit court denied habeas relief, finding that Abernathy had failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that he was being illegally detained. We affirm. The circuit court’s ruling in a habeas proceeding will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Ross v. Payne, 2026 Ark. 153, at 2 (citing Davis v. State, 2025 Ark. 185, at 2, 722 S.W.3d 513, 515). A decision is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing all the evidence, the appellate court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. A petitioner who does not allege actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either that the judgment is facially invalid or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and must demonstrate, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Id. A habeas proceeding does not require an extensive review of the trial record; rather, the circuit court’s inquiry into the validity of the judgment is limited to the face of the commitment order. Id. Unless the petitioner establishes that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order is invalid on its face, habeas relief is not warranted. Id. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine questions involving violations of criminal statutes and personal jurisdiction over offenders who have committed said violations within the county over which it presides. Ross, 2026 Ark. 153, at 2 (citing Crockett v. Payne, 2026 Ark. 62, at 2–3). Abernathy was convicted of capital murder for Bradley’s death, with burglary—not battery—as the underlying felony. His argument to the contrary conflates his two convictions: he was separately convicted of first-degree battery for the injuries Martin 2 sustained. As this court has previously held, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole is permissible for capital murder. See generally Abernathy v. State, 2011 Ark. 335, at 3. The Pulaski County Circuit Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the felony criminal proceeding, and Abernathy failed to establish either a jurisdictional defect or a facially invalid commitment order. Ross, 2026 Ark. 153, at 3 (“Circuit courts in Arkansas have subject- matter jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving violations of Arkansas criminal statutes, and personal jurisdiction over offenders who have committed said violations within the county over which it presides.”); id. (“We have repeatedly . . . made clear that one is held without lawful authority and thus entitled to a writ of habeas corpus when it is shown that the commitment order is invalid on its face or the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.”). Abernathy also argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This claim does not implicate the circuit court’s jurisdiction and is thus not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Gibbs v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 29, at 3, 660 S.W.3d 579, 582. In the habeas context, a sentence is illegal if it exceeds the statutory maximum. Abernathy’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole, however, is permissible for a capital-murder conviction. Abernathy, 2011 Ark. 335, at 3. Finally, Abernathy contends that the conditions of his incarceration have deprived him of a fundamentally fair postconviction proceeding under Rule 37.1. The conditions under which an inmate serves his sentence are outside the purview of a habeas proceeding. Mosley v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 142, at 4 (per curiam). Such claims do not implicate the circuit court’s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the commitment order. Id. Abernathy further argues that his mandatory life sentence should be reconsidered based on his understanding 3 that the Supreme Court of the United States has prohibited mandatory life sentences for offenders who were twenty-one years old or younger at the time of their offenses. This court has addressed the application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), in numerous cases. We have held that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a capital murder committed by an adult is not facially illegal, and the Supreme Court has not extended Miller to offenders who were eighteen or older when they committed their crimes. And neither have we. Freeman v. State, 2026 Ark. 121, at 4. Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Abernathy failed to establish probable cause to believe that he was being illegally detained. Affirmed. Special Justice CORY COX joins. HUDSON, J., concurs. WEBB, J., not participating. Roosevelt Abernathy, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen.; by: Walter K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 4