Courvelle v. McCormick

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
SHERREL JEAN COURVELLE 	PETITIONER
v. 	No. 6:24-cv-06088
MIKE MCCORMICK
Sheriff of Garland County, Arkansas RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Sherrel Jean Courvelle (“Courvelle”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on June
27, 2024. ECF No. 1. The following day, the Court ordered Courvelle to file an Amended Petition
on the Court’s approved form. ECF No. 3. On July 11, 2024, Courvelle filed an Amended Petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 4. 1
On September 26, 2024, Sheriff Mike McCormick, (“Respondent”) filed a Response to the
Amended Petition. ECF No. 15. The matter is now ripe for consideration. This Amended Petition
was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of
the case. The Court has reviewed the Amended Petition, Response, and all exhibits submitted and
finds the Petition should be DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The State of Arkansas charged Courvelle with numerous felony offenses including nine
counts of aggravated cruelty to a dog, cat or equine, theft of property valued between $1,000 and
$4999, theft of property over $5,000, and three counts of failure to appear. The Garland County
Sheriff was ordered to arrest Courvelle and hold her with a zero bond by a failure to appear warrant
issued by the Garland County Circuit Court on August 24, 2023. ECF No. 15-1. Courvelle was
1 A review of the Amended Petition shows Courvelle is asking to be released from the Garland County Detention
Center and have her charges dismissed. Accordingly, the Court considers the Amended Petition as one filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Case 6:24-cv-06088-SOH Document 19 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
arrested on February 24, 2024. Courvelle was tried by a jury on September 23, 2024, in the Garland
County Circuit Court and convicted of three counts of failure to appear. She was sentenced to
forty-five years in the Arkansas Department of Corrections.2
Courvelle’s Amended Petition, which incorporates her original Petition, contains more
than seventy pages, much of which is indecipherable. She asserts the State of Arkansas has no
jurisdiction over her based on a variety of sovereign citizen and common law arguments. 	ECF
Nos. 1, 4. Courvelle describes four specific grounds for relief in the Amended Petition: 1) denial
of a speedy trial; 2) double jeopardy based on her claims she had “a common law trial by jury
verdict and the Foreign Courts operating a foreign law on our land refuse to acknowledge the
verdict…”; 3) “The police trespassed and searched on my property repeatedly w/no warrant”…;
and 4) “I have been arrested multiple times over the same offense…”. ECF No. 4, pp. 6-7.
Respondent argues: 1) the Circuit Courts are the courts of general original jurisdiction in
Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-201, venue was proper, and the courts had both
personal and subject matter jurisdiction of Courvelle’s criminal case; 2) Courvelle’s allegations
concerning double jeopardy and speedy trial are without merit; 3) and Courvelle failed to exhaust
state remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1)(A). ECF No. 15, p. 3.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), Courvelle’s Amended Petition cannot be
granted “unless it appears that—(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or (B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii)
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”
Further, Section 2254 (c) states: “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies
2 The docket in Courvelle’s criminal case 26CR-23-712 is located at https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/26CR-
23-712 (accessed October 28, 2024).
Case 6:24-cv-06088-SOH Document 19 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the
law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
The state court criminal docket indicates Courvelle filed a “Notice of Appeal” on October
10, 2024, and requested a trial transcript. Clearly Courvelle has not availed herself of all available
state court procedures. Further, there has been no demonstration of the absence of an available
State corrective process or any other circumstance which would render the process ineffective to
protect Courvelle’s rights. Accordingly, the § 2254 Petition should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust available state remedies.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 30th day of October 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06088-SOH Document 19 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>