Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty or nolo contendere to rape. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, claiming that scientific evidence was available to show his actual innocence and that his arrest was illegal. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the petition was untimely and that Appellant offered no scientific evidence in support of his allegation. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motions related to the appeal moot, holding (1) considering Appellant's unsubstantiated claim that merely alleged the availability of scientific evidence, the trial court did not err in denying relief; and (2) dismissal of the petition was proper because it was not timely filed. View "Winnett v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of drug-related offenses. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging, among other things, that the judgment violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, his right to a speedy trial, and the right to conduct his own defense. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed appeal and mooted Appellant's motions related to the appeal, holding that none of Appellant's claims were grounds for issuance for the writ. View "Watts v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant's decedents were passengers in a 1979 Beechcraft Baron airplane when, in 2008, the left engine lost power and the plane crashed, killing all persons on board. Appellant filed suit on behalf of his decedents' estates, claiming wrongful death based on negligence and products liability. Appellant named as defendants the manufacturers of the airplane (Appellees), among others. Appellees moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant's suit was barred by the eighteen-year statute of repose set forth in the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA). The circuit court granted summary judgment to Appellees, finding that Appellant's claims were barred by GARA and that neither the fraud exception nor the new-part rolling provision of GARA applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment to Appellees where (1) a genuine issue of material fact did not exist with respect to whether the fraud exception to GARA applied here; and (2) Appellant's allegations that the publication of an allegedly defective flight manual were insufficient to invoke GARA's new-part rolling provision as a matter of law. View "Tillman v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to robbery and overdraft. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to 300 months' imprisonment to run consecutive to his parole violation. Appellant appealed and filed motions for transcript and for extension of time to file brief. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, which the circuit court denied as untimely. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motions, holding (1) the claims raised in Appellant's petition did not allege an illegal type of sentence that was jurisdictional in nature, but rather made allegations that should have been raised at trial or in a timely petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1; and (2) Appellant's petition was also untimely under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. View "Stanley v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was arrested in 2011 and detained in jail, where he remained since his arrest. Petitioner was later charged with aggravated robbery and capital murder. In 2013, Petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus against the county sheriff, seeking his release from custody and asserting that his continued detainment violated his due process rights because the prosecutor announced there was insufficient evidence to move forward with the case. The Supreme Court denied the petition because none of the allegations raised by Petitioner called into question the trial court's jurisdiction or established that the commitment was invalid on its face. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with aggravated robbery and capital murder. The elected prosecutor unsuccessfully moved to nolle pros the case against Petitioner due to the main eyewitness's unavailability. The circuit court subsequently disqualified the elected prosecutor and appointed a special prosecutor, finding that the elected prosecutor disqualified himself by seeking not to prosecute Petitioner when there was evidence to support the prosecution. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition but granted the writ of certiorari, holding (1) the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by disqualifying the elected prosecutor and appointing a special prosecutor; but (2) the writ of certiorari did not lie with regard to the circuit court's denial of the motion to nolle pros. View "Smith v. Simes" on Justia Law

John and Libby were divorced pursuant to a decree that incorporated the parties' settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided that Libby would serve as the primary custodian of the parties' three sons and Appellant would receive reasonable visitation. The agreement also stated that neither party was to have overnight guests of the opposite sex. The circuit court later entered an order modifying visitation to restrict John's visitation to R.M., who was five years old at the time. When R.M. turned twelve years old, John filed a motion for modification of visitation to allow for, among other things, overnight visits with R.M. The circuit court granted John's motion, finding there had been a material change in circumstances and that it was in R.M.'s best interest to have more time with his father. However, the court imposed a non-cohabitation restriction preventing John's boyfriend, with whom John was in a committed long-term relationship, from being present during any overnight visits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to make a finding as to whether the non-cohabitation provision was in the best interest of R.M. Remanded. View "Moix v. Moix" on Justia Law

Petitioners had a homeowners' insurance policy with Respondent that covered Petitioners' dwelling. The policy stated that any covered loss would be paid based on actual cash value, rather than replacement value, but the policy did not define the term "actual cash value." After Petitioners' dwelling was damaged by a tornado, Respondent valued Petitioners' loss at $48,647 after calculating the repair costs and the depreciation of the items requiring repair. Petitioners brought a class action in federal district court against Respondent, alleging that Respondent breached the insurance policy, and those policies of the putative class members, when it improperly applied a depreciation factor to the labor portion of repairs required at their respective dwellings. Specifically, Petitioners contend that their policy's failure to address depreciation of labor rendered the policy's term "actual cash value" ambiguous. The federal district court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered by holding that an insurer, in determining the "actual cash value" of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy, may not depreciate the costs of labor when the term "actual cash value" is not defined in the policy. View "Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a trial in the Saline County Circuit Court in 1987, Appellant was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. In 2013, Appellant filed a "motion to order release due to court order from 1996" in the circuit court in Lee County, where he was in custody. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that it constituted a challenge to the judgment of conviction entered in the Saline County trial court and should have been filed there. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Appellant's motion was intended to be in the nature of a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a petition for postconviction relief, the circuit court was not wrong to dismiss the motion. View "Zulpo v. State" on Justia Law

Decedent was a resident of Searcy Healthcare Center (SHC) from January 7 to January 29. On January 8, Decedent executed a written arbitration agreement with SHC that was binding on Decedent's children, personal representatives, and administrators of Decedent's estate. Decedent died on February 12. The next year, Appellee filed a nursing-home-malpractice action against SHC as administrator of Decedent's estate and on behalf of the statutory wrongful-death beneficiaries. The circuit court denied SHC's motion to compel arbitration against the wrongful-death beneficiaries, concluding that Decedent had not extinguished the substantive rights of the wrongful-death beneficiaries by signing the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in finding that the wrongful-death beneficiaries were not bound by the arbitration agreement executed by Decedent. Remanded. View "Searcy Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Murphy" on Justia Law