Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 120 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-607 Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026 DEANDRA STEPHENSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 39CV-24-144] HONORABLE DANNY W. GLOVER, DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, JUDGE ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CORRECTION AFFIRMED. APPELLEE RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice In 2007, a jury convicted DeAndra Stephenson of two counts of capital murder and one count of a terroristic act and sentenced him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment and forty-five years, respectively. This court affirmed on direct appeal. Stephenson v. State, 373 Ark. 134, 282 S.W.3d 772 (2008). Stephenson now appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Finney v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 145, at 3, 598 S.W.3d 26, 28. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes and has personal jurisdiction over offenses committed within the county over which it presides. Fuller/Akbar v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 155, at 4, 628 S.W.3d 366, 368–69. The circuit court’s inquiry into the validity of the judgment is limited to the face of the commitment order. Hogan v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 99, at 4, 668 S.W.3d 466, 468. If a petitioner does not show that on the face of the commitment order there was an illegal sentence imposed or the claim does not implicate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, then the claim is not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Chatmon v. Payne, 2025 Ark. 19, at 3. We do not go behind the guilty plea to examine evidence of guilt in a habeas proceeding. White v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 171, at 3, 678 S.W.3d 23, 26. Nor is a habeas proceeding a substitute or a means to relitigate issues on direct appeal. Hunt v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 126, at 6, 696 S.W.3d 806, 811. We will affirm a circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless it is clearly erroneous. Burks v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 80, at 2, 687 S.W.3d 798, 800. A decision is clearly erroneous when the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that there has been a mistake. Id. Stephenson’s primary argument for habeas relief concerns the trial judge’s participation in a memorial service for one of the victims. Stephenson raised the issue at trial in a motion to recuse, and we affirmed the court’s denial of the motion to recuse on direct appeal. Stephenson, 373 Ark. at 140, 282 S.W.3d at 778. The purpose of claim preclusion is to end litigation by preventing a party who has already had a fair trial on the matter from litigating it again. Gulley v. State ex rel. Jegley, 2023 Ark. 70, at 6, 664 S.W.3d 421, 425. Stephenson’s claim on this issue has been presented, litigated, and denied. Stephenson also claimed that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because it failed to obtain service of process of the “charging order.” But he abandoned this argument on appeal. 2 Issues raised below but not argued on appeal are considered abandoned. Cullen v. State, 2023 Ark. 172, at 3, 678 S.W.3d 20, 22. For these reasons, we hold the circuit court’s denial of habeas relief was not clearly erroneous and affirm. Affirmed. Special Justices CORY COX and MARY CAROLE YOUNG join. WEBB and BRONNI, JJ., not participating. DeAndra L. Stephenson, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3