Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mike Burcham filed an amended complaint against the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas for wrongful discharge. After the circuit court denied the Board’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, the Board sought extraordinary writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari directed to the Circuit Court of Crawford County to stop the court from proceeding further on the complaint based on lack of venue. The Supreme Court also decided on the day of this opinion, in a separate interlocutory appeal, that the Board was entitled to sovereign immunity. Because of the Court’s conclusion that the Board was indeed entitled to sovereign immunity, the case against the Board was dismissed and the instant petition for extraordinary writs was therefore moot. View "Bd. of Trs. v. Crawford County Cir. Court" on Justia Law

Mike Burcham filed an action against the University of Arkansas and others, claiming that he was wrongfully terminated. The University filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing that Burcham’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that an allegation in Burcham’s complaint that the University failed to follow a grievance procedure outlined in the employee handbook was sufficient to waive the University’s sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity were applicable to the instant case, and therefore, the circuit court erred in denying the University’s amended motion to dismiss. View "Bd. of Trs. v. Burcham" on Justia Law

After Mother was arrested on charges of possession of drug paraphernalia, the circuit court entered an order placing Mother’s child with the child’s biological father (Father). The child was subsequently adjudicated the child as dependent-neglected. At a six-month review hearing, the circuit court ceased reunification services, granted Father permanent custody, and closed the dependency-neglect proceeding sua sponte and without notice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Mother’s argument that the circuit court’s disposition was not authorized under the juvenile code was not preserved for appeal; and (2) the circuit court clearly erred in determining that it was in the child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of Father. Remanded with directions for the court to return custody of the child to Mother. View "Ingle v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of rape, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping and sentenced to 135 years’ imprisonment. Nearly thirty years after the date of his commitment, Petitioner filed a pleading that the Supreme Court treated as a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petition, holding (1) because the petition was untimely filed, Petitioner had the burden of establishing that the judgment of conviction was void; and (2) Petitioner did not establish that there was a ground sufficient to void the judgment of conviction, and therefore, Petitioner failed to meet his burden. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2010, Appellant was hired as a patient-care tech by Employer. On January 11, 2012, Employer terminated Appellant’s employment for Appellant's failure to become certified within eighteen months of being hired. The Department of Workforce Services denied Appellant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits, finding that Appellant was discharged for failure to become certified. The Board of Review upheld the Department’s denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant’s actions were a willful disregard of her employer’s interests, and therefore, Appellant was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work. After noting that Appellant was on track to receive her testing date in advance of the eighteen-month deadline but for Employer’s failure properly to complete her application for testing, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board could not have reasonably reached its conclusion that Appellant’s actions were misconduct where the required element of intent was so lacking. Remanded. View "Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law

Debtors executed a promissory note in favor of First State Bank to purchase a condominium. After Debtors defaulted on their loan, First State subsequently filed a complaint against Debtors, the loan’s guarantor, and the condominium property owners’ association (Metro POA), claiming that it was entitled to collect money owed it from the Debtor and guarantor, and that any interest Metro POA had in the real property related to unpaid assessments was inferior to and subject to State Bank’s mortgage. The circuit court granted First State judgment against Debtors and the guarantor, gave First State the right to foreclose on the property, and ruled that Metro POA’s interest would survive the foreclosure action and become the liability of the purchaser. Thereafter, First State purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. On appeal, First State argued that the circuit court erred in refusing to extinguish Metro POA’s lien for unpaid assessments and in awarding Metro POA attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to extinguish Metro POA’s interest and in awarding attorney’s fees to Metro POA. View "First State Bank v. Metro Dist. Condos. Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc." on Justia Law

After Appellant, Mother of J.G., failed to pick J.G. up from school, the circuit court adjudicated J.G. dependent-neglected and removed J.G. from Mother’s home. After a permanency-planning hearing, the circuit court granted permanent custody to J.G.’s maternal grandmother and closed the case. The court also granted Mother extended unsupervised visitation of J.G. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it granted permanent custody of J.G. to his grandmother and closed the case where the court found Mother was in compliance with the case plan and making significant progress toward remedying the conditions that caused the removal. Remanded. View "Contreras v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault. Petitioner subsequently filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that his guilty plea was coerced and that newly discovered evidence warranted issuance of the writ. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner later sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying coram nobis relief where (1) Petitioner’s claims did not rise to the level of coercion required to demonstrate that a writ of error coram nobis should issue; and (2) the petition did not demonstrate a Brady violation in that there was no fact cited by Petitioner that could not have been known at the time the plea was entered. View "Bannister v. State" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Charles and Nancy Brannon. The circuit court later vacated Appellant’s convictions and sentences, finding that the prosecution’s failure to reveal information about one of its witnesses prejudiced Appellant’s right to a fair trial. Appellant was retried for the murders in 2012, was against convicted of both counts of capital murder, and was sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) permitting Byron Hopes to testify because although his testimony was procured through an illegal sentence reduction, the proper remedy was cross-examination of the witness, not suppression of the testimony; (2) holding that the cross-examination of Hopes about the deal would open the door to testimony about Appellant's other murder case; (3) finding that transcripts of witness testimony from Appellant's first trial were admissible in his new trial; and (4) excluding part of the prior testimony of Bill Keeling, whose testimony was previously proffered but rejected in Appellant's first trial. View "Sanders v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of thirty-seven various sex offenses and sentenced to a total of thirty-seven years incarceration. After Appellant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for because counsel was simultaneously representing Appellant and Appellant’s wife at the time of Appellant’s trial, and the dual representation created an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting counsel’s performance. The trial court ultimately denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an actual conflict of interest existed under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance. Remanded for a new trial with conflict-free counsel. View "Rackley v. State" on Justia Law