violated by the |3length of his term of imprisonment. Clayton also argues in his brief that the circuit court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the claims in the habeas petition. With respect to Clayton’s claim that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction, the allegation does not state a ground for relief. Mitchell v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 326, 2016 WL 5845664 (per curiam). In a habeas proceeding that is not filed under Act 1780, challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, which are due-process claims, are not cognizable. Gardner v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 346, 439 S.W.3d 663 (per curiam). Likewise, an attack on the credibility of Clayton’s victim was not a ground for the writ. See Jones v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 251, at 2-3, 2015 WL 3429320 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). A habeas proceeding does not afford a
recognizing that in any criminal trial the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses is central holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding trial court free to evaluate credibility of witnesses holding that attacks on the credibility of the witnesses at trial do not provide grounds to grant the writ