Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 124 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-691 Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026 ROBERT GRADY APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT V. COURT [NO. 35CV-25-788] DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, ARKANSAS DIVISION OF JUDGE CORRECTION APPELLEE AFFIRMED. NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice Appellant Robert Grady appeals from the denial and dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. In May 1999, Grady shot and killed his wife while she was sleeping. He then called 911 and confessed to the killing before setting his house on fire and attempting to flee the jurisdiction. At trial, Grady claimed that he suffered from a mental disease, but the jury rejected that defense. It found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison. Grady appealed, and this court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. Grady v. State, 350 Ark. 160, 85 S.W.3d 531 (2002). Our habeas jurisdiction is limited. To obtain relief, 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 who has alleged actual innocence of the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Moreover, under our precedents, where a petitioner does not claim actual innocence relief is only available where the petitioner demonstrates that the underlying “judgment and commitment order is invalid on its face or” the “trial court lack[ed] jurisdiction.” Anderson v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 129, at 2; accord Davis v. State, 2025 Ark. 185, at 3, 722 S.W.3d 513, 515 (asking whether a petitioner has demonstrated a defect on “the face of the commitment order”). As the circuit court concluded, Grady’s petition does not meet that standard. Generously construed, Grady’s petition alleges that his trial was tainted by: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) improper jury instructions; (3) a failure to sequester the jury; (4) a transcription error; (5) an arbitrarily shortened trial; and (6) ineffective assistance of counsel. None of those claims are cognizable on habeas review. See Anderson, 2024 Ark. 129, at 3–4. On the contrary, this court has repeatedly held that trial errors should be raised on direct review and that claims of ineffective assistance must be raised either on direct review or in a postconviction petition filed pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. See Crawford v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 80, at 2. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of Grady’s petition. Affirmed. Special Justice CORY COX joins. WEBB, J., not participating. Robert Grady, pro se appellant. 2 Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Mallory Wood, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3