Androus Hall v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The court affirmed denial of Hall's habeas petition because none of his claims established that the commitment order was facially invalid or that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction. Claims alleging ineffective assistance, insufficient evidence, and parole-eligibility errors are not cognizable in habeas proceedings, and Hall failed to show a facial double-jeopardy violation or illegal sentence. The court concluded that both challenged sentences were facially legal and authorized by statute.