Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Les Marlow filed a complaint against Glenn Petkovsek and United Systems of Arkansas, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, Appellants, Les Marlow and other individuals, filed claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy against Petkovsek and United Systems. Various counterclaims were filed against Appellants, including breach of contract and conversion. The jury (1) entered verdicts in favor of United Systems on its claims but awarded zero damages, and (2) entered defense verdicts for Petkovsek and United Systems, finding Plaintiffs failed to prove their claims. The circuit court subsequently found United Systems and Petkovsek were entitled to attorney's fees and costs but awarded them only to Petkovsek. Appellants appealed the award. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's award, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) finding that Petkovsek was a prevailing party; and (2) finding that attorney's fees and costs are available to a prevailing party in a wrongful-discharge against public-policy case. View "Marlow v. United Sys. of Ark., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1991, the cities of Carlisle and Lonoke requested a writ of mandamus to require Lonoke County to pay one-half of the judicial and clerk salaries and a portion of the expenses of the municipal courts in those cities pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-17-115 ("the 1987 statute"). The circuit court granted the writ. In 2007, the 1987 statute was amended with an effective date of 2012. In 2012, the City of Lonoke and the Lonoke District Court ("the City") sought a writ directing the County to obey they 1991 order as it related to funding the Lonoke District Court, alleging that the 2012 statute allowed the County to ignore the 1991 order and reduce its obligation to pay its proportionate share of the expenses for the district court. The circuit court issued a writ of mandamus and awarded attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly issued a writ of mandamus ordering the County to abide by the 1991 order; and (2) the circuit court erred in awarding fees. View "Lonoke County v. City of Lonoke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Prior to issuance of the mandate, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel had provided constitutionally deficient assistance for several reasons. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and moot his motion for extension of time to file his brief because it was clear Appellant could not prevail if his appeal were permitted to go forward. View "Jordan v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court in Lee County, where he was incarcerated. Thereafter, Petitioner was transferred to a facility in a different county. The circuit court dismissed Petitioner's petition. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and moved to proceed with a belated appeal and to complete the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion for belated appeal and mooted the motion to complete the record, holding that because Petitioner was not in custody in the Lee County Circuit Court's jurisdiction, the Lee County Circuit Court did not retain personal jurisdiction over Petitioner and could no longer grant the relief sought. View "Fields v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) at a facility in Lincoln County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition and filed a second petition for habeas corpus. Appellant subsequently filed a series of motions and pleadings in the case. The circuit court dismissed the first habeas petition, denied the second habeas petition, and denied or dismissed motions and pleadings filed in the habeas proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and held the motion related to the appeal moot, holding that because Appellant was not incarcerated in Pulaski County, the Pulaski County Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to release Appellant on a writ of habeas corpus. View "Pitts v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the calculation of his parole eligibility. The circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant appealed and filed a pleading arguing that his sentence should be dismissed as unconstitutional on the ground that the trial judge did not follow federal sentencing guidelines. Appellant also argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that he was being held pursuant to an invalid conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion and affirmed the circuit court's order, holding that Appellant failed to show he was entitled to declaratory judgment or a writ of mandamus, and his motion was without merit. View "Pitts v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Bobbie Troup, in her capacity as the administrator of the estate of Easter Dawkins, filed suit alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death against Petitioners. During the trial proceedings, Troup filed a petition requesting that Petitioners be required to pay for the cost of five expert witnesses who had appeared to testify on her behalf on the scheduled trial date but did not testify because the circuit court had granted a motion for continuance made by Petitioners. The circuit court entered an order directing Petitioner to pay Troup for expert-witness costs associated with the continuance of the trial. Petitioners petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of certiorari, against the circuit court, contending that the court exceeded its authority and abused its discretion in ordering them pay the expert-witness costs of Troup. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, as Petitioners had an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal. View "Moore v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the rape of his stepdaughter and sentenced to 156 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, for, among other things, deciding not to introduce a recording into evidence for the purpose of impeaching the victim. The trial court found that Appellant was not entitled to relief on the allegation because Appellant failed to identify specific evidence that would have changed the outcome of the trial and because the introduction of evidence is a matter of trial strategy. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court on this point and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, as it was not apparent from the face of the petition or the record that Appellant was not entitled to relief on this allegation. View "Lemaster v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder for the death of his twenty-three-month-old son and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred by removing a juror without justification. The juror had spoken with prospective witnesses during trial proceedings and denied to the court that she had spoken with any witnesses. The circuit court removed the juror and replaced her by an alternate juror. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in removing the juror and seating an alternate. View "Ingram v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree terroristic threatening, felon in possession of a firearm, and intimidating a witness. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from that ruling and then filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the circuit court failed to rule on a number of points that he had raised. The motion to reconsider was deemed denied, after which Appellant filed a supplemental notice of appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to settle the record because it was not able to determine whether it had jurisdiction due to gaps and inconsistencies in the transcript. View "Hayes v. State" on Justia Law