Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 115 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-629 Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026 GERALD LOWERY APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; MOTION V. FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [NO. 40CV-25-71] DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DIVISION OF HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, CORRECTION JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION MOOT. KAREN R. BAKER, Chief Justice Appellant Gerald Lowery appeals from the denial and dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016) in Lincoln County. Also pending is Lowery’s motion for appointment of counsel and for oral argument. In his circuit court petition, Lowery alleged that he is entitled to issuance of the writ because the statute of limitations barred prosecution for the crimes of rape and second-degree sexual assault and the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Lowery further alleged that the prosecutor in his criminal case had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and led a witness to commit perjury. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition, finding that Lowery failed to demonstrate that he is being illegally detained. We find no error and affirm, which renders Lowery’s motion for appointment of counsel and oral argument moot. A Miller County Circuit Court jury convicted Lowery of rape and second-degree sexual assault of the minor victim, T.L., who was less than fourteen at the time. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life and 240 months in the Arkansas Division of Correction. Lowery v. State, 2019 Ark. 332, 586 S.W.3d 644. We affirmed Lowery’s conviction and sentence. Id. We review the circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus for clear error. Muhammad v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 82, 687 S.W.3d 802. A decision is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that there has been a mistake. Id. 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, 598 S.W.3d 26. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Id. When the circuit court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment. Id. 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, 628 S.W.3d 366. When the petitioner does not show that on the face of the commitment order there was an illegal sentence imposed, the claim does not implicate the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, and the claim is not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Rea v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 2 339, 588 S.W.3d 715. A court considering a habeas action is not obligated to go beyond the face of the commitment order to address the claims in the petition, and the petitioner bears the burden of showing that the face of the judgment at issue was invalid. Rea v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 347. The statute of limitations in the Criminal Code is jurisdictional, unlike some of the civil statutes of limitation that are waived unless pleaded. Hunter v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 79, 666 S.W.3d 76. The express wording of the limitations statute in the Criminal Code is a mandatory prohibition on prosecution outside the limitations period, and the expiration of the statute of limitations in a criminal case thus leaves a circuit court without jurisdiction to try the case. Id. In a habeas petition, a claim that the offenses occurred outside the statute of limitations is cognizable since a statute-of-limitations issue implicates jurisdiction to hear the case and cannot be waived. Id. I. Statute of Limitations Lowery was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting T.L. in the fall of 2004 and continued through the spring of 2005. Lowery, 2019 Ark. 332, 586 S.W.3d 644. The direct- appeal record reveals that T.L. was born on January 10, 1998, and was between six and seven when she was assaulted.1 T.L. turned eighteen in January 2016, and she reported the rape and assault in 2017. 1 This court may take judicial notice of the direct-appeal record lodged following conviction without need to supplement the record. Jones v. State, 2020 Ark. 338, 609 S.W.3d 375. 3 In 2004 and 2005, rape had a six-year limitations period, and sexual assault had a three-year limitations period. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109(b)(1) & (2) (Supp. 2003). However, according to section 5-1-109(h), if the victim was a minor at the time she was raped and sexually assaulted, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced if the limitations period prescribed in section 5-1-109(b) has not expired since the victim has reached eighteen years of age or if it has been reported to law enforcement. In other words, the limitations period does not begin to run until a minor victim either turns eighteen or reports the crimes to law enforcement. Because T.L. did not turn eighteen until 2016 and did not report to law enforcement until 2017, prosecution was not yet barred in 2011, when that statute of limitations was extended to permit prosecution when the minor victim turned twenty-eight years old, if it had not been previously reported to law enforcement. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109(a)(2)(A) & (C) (Supp. 2011). Likewise, prosecution was not yet barred in 2013, when the statute was amended again to allow the prosecution for rape and sexual assault committed against a minor victim to be commenced at “any time.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109(a)(1)(D) & (G) (Repl. 2013). In view of the above, by the time T.L. turned eighteen, the limitations period had been eliminated for the prosecution for rape and sexual assault. That was the law when the initial information was filed on January 24, 2018. In sum, because the statutes of limitation for Lowery’s rape and second degree-sexual assault never expired, the statute of limitations did not bar prosecution, and the circuit court did not lack jurisdiction. II. Brady Violation and Prosecutorial Misconduct 4 Lowery claims prosecutorial misconduct and a Brady violation in connection with the testimony of his daughter B.B. that Lowery had sexually assaulted her when she was a minor. Lowery claims that false allegations made by B.B. and B.B.’s mother were manufactured by the State and that the State withheld evidence that undermined B.B.’s credibility. A claim of prosecutorial misconduct, including a claim that a prosecutor presented false testimony and withheld evidence in violation of Brady, does not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court, and such an allegation does not support issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. In view of the above, the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Lowery’s petition for the writ. Affirmed; motion moot. Special Justices CORY COX and H.G. FOSTER join. WOOD, J., concurs. WEBB and BRONNI, JJ., not participating. Gerald Lowery, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walker K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 5