Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft of property, with a firearm enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, claiming that he was denied a fair and impartial trial, that his confession was the result of coercion by law enforcement, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during trial. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motions Appellant filed in relation to the appeal, holding that the petition was wholly without merit. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count each of rape and kidnapping. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), contending that the ADC had violated his due process rights in calculating his transfer-eligibility date because Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-611 did not require that Defendant serve seventy percent of his sentence before being eligible for community-punishment placement. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to set forth any convincing argument or authority in support of his contentions. View "Ritter v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of four counts rape and sentenced to four consecutive terms of 480 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging claims of trial error, insufficiency of the felony information, and due process and equal protection violations. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

J.B. Hunt was a judgment creditor of Robert and Frieda Thornton, who were the trustees and life beneficiaries of five trusts, each of which provided that quarterly distributions be made to the Thorntons until their deaths. J.B. Hunt commenced an action to attach the Thorntons’ interest in future distributions from the trusts and to apply them to the satisfaction of J.B. Hunt’s judgment. The circuit court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, determining that a creditor may not claim a quarterly distribution until the date it becomes due. On appeal, J.B. Hunt asserted that Ark. Code Ann. 28-73-501 provides that a creditor may reach future distributions from a trust. Appellees argued that although attachments of future distributions may be authorized by section 28-73-501 in some situations, it was not permissible in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that J.B. Hunt’s complaint improperly sought the Thorntons’ uncertain future distributions from the trusts, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it. View "J.B. Hunt v. Thornton" on Justia Law

The State filed a forfeiture complaint alleging that a drug task force had seized property - $1,427 in U.S. currency - from Appellant in connection with felony violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and ordered the currency forfeited to the prosecuting attorney’s office. The circuit court granted the State’s motion for default judgment based on Appellant’s failure to respond to the complaint and order. More than one year later, Appellant filed a motion for return of the seized property on the basis that the currency was not being used for evidentiary purposes because the charges filed against him had been dismissed. The circuit court denied the motion, finding it without merit and untimely and that Appellant had stated no valid reason for setting aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show any reason for setting aside the default judgment. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life in prison without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, denied Appellant’s motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court, and mooted Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and to stay appeal, holding that Appellant’s allegations were conclusory or failed to provide a basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Craigg v. State" on Justia Law

After the parental rights of Appellant were terminated Appellant filed a “Motion for Determination of Indigency for Purpose of Appointed Appellate Counsel.” The day Appellant’s indigency motion was heard, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order terminating his parental rights. At the hearing, Appellant’s counsel rested on an unsworn document asserting that his monthly take-home pay was $900 and that he had $750 in expenses. The attorney ad litem respondent by asserting that the document contradicted Appellant’s hearing testimony, in which he claimed he had a monthly income of $2100, and a home study, in which Appellant claimed a monthly income of $1700. The circuit court denied Appellant’s motion for indigency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant was not indigent. View "Cordero v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and possessing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, claiming that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either conclusory, not supported by the evidence, not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, or without merit. View "Boatwright v. State" on Justia Law

Dan and Brenda Billingsley owned and operated Floors and More, Inc. on certain property (“West Bank Property”). Benton NWA Properties purchased the property across from the West Bank Property in 2008 (“East Bank Property”). Appellants, the Billingsleys and Floors and More, filed a second amended complaint against Benton NWA, alleging that Appellants suffered damages after the West Bank Property flooded due to the owners of the East Bank Property placing fill material in the floodplain. The parties settled, and the circuit court subsequently granted a motion to enforce the settlement agreement in favor of Benton NWA. Appellants appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in ordering that the settlement agreement should contain a release of all liability for future flooding of property owned by the Billingsleys. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice because the circuit court’s order failed to contain specific factual findings in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b). View "Billingsley v. Benton NWA Props., LLC " on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate at a prison facility in Lee County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. Petitioner did not timely appeal from the order and subsequently sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal. As his ground to permit a belated appeal, Petitioner argued that his notice of appeal, which was filed one day late, should be considered timely filed because the Labor Day holiday should not be counted when calculating the thirty-day period to file the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion for belated appeal, holding that Petitioner’s motion was without merit where Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 does not require that a legal holiday that occurred during the thirty-day period be excluded in the calculation of the thirty days to file the notice of appeal. View "Betts v. State" on Justia Law