Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In March 2017, Torry Rodgers committed aggravated robbery, theft of property by threat of serious physical injury, and felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere in June 2018 and was sentenced to concurrent twelve-year imprisonment terms for each offense. His sentencing order noted that he would serve 100% of his sentence for aggravated robbery. Rodgers had a prior 2008 conviction for residential burglary, which was later classified as a violent felony for parole purposes under a 2015 amendment.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Rodgers's petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief, and granted the appellees' cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Act 683 of 2023, which amended parole eligibility calculations, did not apply to Rodgers. The court also allowed the appellees to submit Rodgers's plea agreement and a transcript of his plea hearing into the record.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the notation in Rodgers's sentencing order did not constitute an express designation to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609, as required by Act 683. The court found that the plain language of the statute was clear and unambiguous, and that Rodgers's prior residential burglary conviction should not be considered a violent felony for parole purposes. The court also rejected the appellees' argument for a nunc pro tunc correction of the sentencing order. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute. View "Rodgers v. Arkansas Parole Board" on Justia Law

Torry Rodgers entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere in 2018 to aggravated robbery, theft of property by threat of serious physical injury, and felon in possession of a firearm, for crimes committed in 2017. He was sentenced to concurrent twelve-year terms for each offense, with a notation on his sentencing order indicating he would serve 100% of his sentence for aggravated robbery. Rodgers had a prior conviction for residential burglary in 2008, which was later classified as a violent felony for parole purposes under a 2015 amendment.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Rodgers's petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief, and granted the cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Arkansas Parole Board and other appellees. The circuit court found that Act 683 of 2023, which amended parole eligibility calculations, did not apply to Rodgers, and that his sentencing order's notation was sufficient to designate that he was sentenced under the relevant statute.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the notation in Rodgers's sentencing order did not constitute an express designation to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609, as required by Act 683. The court found that the plain language of the statute was clear and unambiguous, and that Rodgers's prior residential burglary conviction should not be considered a violent felony for parole purposes. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Rodgers v. Arkansas Parole Board" on Justia Law

Perry Wright was convicted of residential burglary in 2006 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with an additional seven years' suspended imposition of sentence. In 2020, he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender to twelve years' imprisonment, with a notation on his sentencing order stating "DEFENDANT IS TO SERVE FLAT TIME." In 2023, Wright filed a petition for declaratory relief, seeking to have his parole-eligibility date recalculated based on Act 683 of 2023, which he argued clarified that a pre-2015 residential-burglary conviction is not a felony involving violence for parole eligibility purposes unless explicitly stated in the sentencing order.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Wright's petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and writ of mandamus, as well as his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the appellees' cross-motion for summary judgment, which included Wright's institutional file and plea colloquy from his 2020 plea hearing. The court found that Act 683 did not apply to Wright and did not apply retroactively, and it considered extrinsic evidence in reaching its conclusion.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred in its findings. The court held that Act 683 does apply to Wright and should be applied retroactively. Additionally, the court determined that the circuit court improperly considered extrinsic evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wright v. Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board" on Justia Law

Murphy Oil USA (Murphy) and the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) disputed the categorization of interest expenses related to a corporate spin-off. Murphy, a retail motor-fuel and convenience-store operator, spun off from its parent company in 2013, resulting in interest expenses from issuing senior notes and borrowing funds. Initially, Murphy apportioned these expenses among all states where it conducted business. In 2018, Murphy amended its Arkansas tax returns for 2014 and 2015 to allocate all interest expenses to Arkansas, seeking a tax refund of nearly $4 million.The Union County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Murphy, allowing the amended tax returns and the allocation of 100% of the interest expenses to Arkansas. DFA appealed, arguing that the interest expenses were business-income expenses under the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) and should be apportioned among all states, that a state statute made the expenses non-deductible if allocable to Arkansas, and that it was unfair to allow Murphy a tax refund in Arkansas without amending returns in other states.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that Murphy's spin-off was an extraordinary, nonrecurring event, classifying the interest expenses as nonbusiness income under UDITPA, thus allocable entirely to Arkansas. The court also found that Arkansas Code Annotated section 26-51-431(c) did not prohibit the deduction of these expenses, as the statute was intended to prevent deductions for expenses related to tax-exempt income, which was not applicable in this case. Finally, the court rejected DFA's fairness argument, stating that it was not the court's role to adjust Arkansas tax returns based on potential unfairness to other states. View "Hudson v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1995, Grady McGowan was convicted of residential burglary. In 2020, he pleaded guilty to residential burglary again and was sentenced to nine years in prison with an additional eleven-year suspended sentence. His sentencing order noted that he might be ineligible for parole due to a prior felony conviction. The Arkansas Division of Correction initially determined McGowan was eligible for parole and provided him a parole hearing, but later rescinded this decision based on a 2022 opinion from the Arkansas Attorney General, which led to a recalculation of his parole-eligibility date.McGowan filed a petition in the Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking declaratory judgment on his parole eligibility under Act 683 of 2023. The circuit court granted declaratory relief in favor of McGowan, finding that the sentencing order did not expressly designate his ineligibility for parole as required by the statute. The court ordered the appellants to modify his parole-eligibility date but denied further relief, stating that McGowan's release was an issue for the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that McGowan's sentencing order did not contain the express designation required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(2)(B) to render him ineligible for parole. The court also declined to remand the case for the sentencing order to be amended nunc pro tunc. The decision was consistent with the court's reasoning in a companion case, Rodgers v. Arkansas Parole Board. View "Post-Prison Transfer Board v. McGowan" on Justia Law

Ke’von Turner was convicted of two counts of felony-capital murder for his involvement in the 2021 murders of Roger Shelby and Andrea Verser in North Little Rock. Turner was sentenced to two concurrent life terms without parole. Evidence showed that Turner orchestrated the ambush, where three gunmen fired twenty-three bullets into the victims' vehicle, killing them instantly. Turner had communicated with the gunmen multiple times before the shooting and was implicated as the primary organizer of the murders, motivated by a large sum of money stored in Shelby’s apartment from their criminal activities.The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Division, presided over the trial. Turner challenged his convictions on three grounds: insufficient evidence of his participation as an accomplice, the limitation on voir dire questioning regarding the range of punishment, and the admission of Snapchat evidence via testimony from a State witness. The circuit court denied Turner’s motion for a directed verdict, finding sufficient evidence of his involvement through accomplice liability. The court also limited voir dire questioning on sentencing considerations but allowed general inquiries about mandatory minimums. Additionally, the court admitted testimony about a Snapchat message despite Turner’s objection based on the best-evidence rule.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decisions. The court held that substantial evidence supported Turner’s convictions as an accomplice in the aggravated robbery and related felony-capital murders. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s limitation on voir dire questioning or in admitting the Snapchat testimony, as the message was automatically deleted and treated like a phone conversation. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Turner’s convictions and sentences. View "TURNER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Progress for Cane Hill, a local-option ballot committee, collected enough signatures to propose a local ordinance to make two precincts in Cane Hill "wet." However, Washington County Clerk Becky Lewallen rejected the initiative because 332 of the signatures were collected by paid canvassers who were not Arkansas residents.Progress for Cane Hill challenged the rejection in the Washington County Circuit Court. The circuit court found that the residency requirement in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-103(a)(6) did not apply to local-option ballot initiatives and ordered Lewallen to certify the initiative's sufficiency. Lewallen appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and focused on statutory interpretation. The court held that the residency requirement for paid canvassers in section 7-9-103(a)(6) does apply to local-option ballot initiatives. The court reasoned that the Local Option Code incorporates the general Election Code, which includes the residency requirement. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and reversed and remanded the case, ordering that votes on the ballot measure not be counted. View "LEWALLEN v. PROGRESS FOR CANE HILL" on Justia Law

Jeffery McPherson was convicted by a Miller County jury of first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence. He received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twelve years, plus a $12,000 fine. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée’s two-month-old son, who was in McPherson’s care while the child’s mother was incarcerated. The child suffered from severe intestinal issues, and McPherson admitted to using a bicycle motion technique to alleviate the child’s pain. However, forensic evidence revealed that the child had multiple rib fractures and a fresh femur fracture, indicating blunt-force trauma.The Miller County Circuit Court found McPherson guilty based on substantial evidence, including the forensic medical examination and McPherson’s own admissions. McPherson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove he knowingly caused the child’s death and suggested that another individual, Jason Uncel, could be responsible. He also contended that his actions were, at worst, reckless rather than intentional. Additionally, McPherson argued that the tampering charge should be reduced, claiming the State did not prove the existence or relevance of the deleted video recordings.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict, including the forensic evidence and McPherson’s attempts to cover up the crime by deleting surveillance footage. The court found that McPherson’s intent could be inferred from the circumstances and his actions. The court also rejected McPherson’s argument regarding the tampering charge, noting that his admission to deleting the video recordings and the circumstantial evidence were sufficient to support the conviction. The court conducted a Rule 4-3(a) review and found no reversible errors. View "McPherson v. State" on Justia Law

Jabari Smith was convicted of capital murder and a firearm enhancement for the shooting death of fifteen-year-old Siar Grigsby. The incident occurred on February 2, 2022, and Smith was charged on March 11, 2022. During the trial, a surveillance video showed Smith shooting Grigsby multiple times from behind and continuing to shoot after Grigsby fell. Witness Efrem Elliot testified that he drove Smith, Grigsby, and Malik Shorter to Smith's home, where the shooting occurred. Smith claimed he shot Grigsby out of fear for his family's safety after Grigsby threatened him with a gun.The Jefferson County Circuit Court jury found Smith guilty, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fifteen years for the firearm enhancement. Smith appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper admission of prejudicial photographs and video, restricted voir dire questioning, and improper cross-examination by the State.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that there was substantial evidence of premeditation, as Smith shot Grigsby multiple times, including after he had fallen. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs and video, as they were relevant and corroborated witness testimony. The court also upheld the trial court's restriction on voir dire questioning about the range of punishment, noting that Smith's mandatory sentence for capital murder was life imprisonment without parole. Lastly, the court found no error in allowing the State to question Smith about discrepancies between his testimony and Elliot's.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no prejudicial error in the trial court's decisions. View "SMITH v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

David Heileman and Ariel Cahoon were divorced in 2017, with a joint custody agreement for their two children. The agreement allowed Cahoon primary custody and Heileman secondary custody, with a nearly equal division of time. In 2021, Cahoon filed a petition for contempt and modification of the custodial arrangement, seeking full custody. She cited Heileman's out-of-state work, the detrimental effect of the back-and-forth schedule on the children, and his failure to pay child support.The Poinsett County Circuit Court held a hearing where both parties testified. Cahoon argued that the current arrangement was chaotic and detrimental to the children's stability. Heileman testified about his job as a traveling surgical technician and his efforts to maintain his custodial time. The court found insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of joint custody but modified the custodial schedule due to Heileman's work schedule and the children's school needs. The new schedule significantly reduced Heileman's time with the children. The court also found Heileman in contempt for failing to pay child support and deferred sentencing for 90 days to allow him to pay the arrears.Heileman appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. Heileman then petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the circuit court failed to make the necessary finding of a material change in circumstances to justify modifying the joint custody arrangement. The court emphasized that joint custody is favored in Arkansas and that any modification away from joint custody requires a material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interest of the child. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The contempt issue was not addressed as the sanctions had not yet been imposed. View "HEILEMAN v. CAHOON" on Justia Law