Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1995, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Grant County circuit court. In 2012, Appellant filed in the Grant County circuit court a motion seeking a hearing on the denial of his request to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The request sought a copy of fingerprint-analysis test results on a piece of evidence from the trial. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that, under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-107(a), the Grant County circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed because Appellant was not incarcerated in Grant County. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

In 1985, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, and in 1986, Appellant was convicted of a separate robbery. In 2010, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending in the circuit court that the trial court in his cases lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the felony informations were filed in the trial court without a preliminary probable-cause hearing having been held beforehand in municipal court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's claims did not challenge the facial validity of the judgment or demonstrate a lack of the trial court's jurisdiction, Appellant did not establish a basis for the writ to issue. View "Halfacre v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellants filed four separate cases stemming from the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE) administrative supervision of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) after the district was found to be in fiscal distress. In each of the cases, ADE filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Appellants' claims for relief were barred by sovereign immunity because the complaints were brought against ADE regarding matters allegedly done in furtherance of ADE's official duties. The circuit court granted the motion in each of the four cases. Appellants appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in dismissing ADE from their actions because the complaints alleged exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting ADE's motions to dismiss, as none of the recognized exceptions to the sovereign immunity doctrine applied in these cases. View "Fitzgiven v. Dorey" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute among the owners of an oil-drilling rig. Donald Buffington owned 62.5 percent of the rig. Newton Dorsett, through his company, Diamond Transport & Drilling, owned the remaining 37.5 percent of the rig. Two lawsuits brought by the owners were resolved when the parties entered into a compromise agreement. The third case was brought by Buffington against Diamond and Dorsett in the Lafayette County circuit court and alleged causes of action for breach of contract and conversion arising out of the agreement. The fourth case was filed by Diamond in Louisiana seeking an order enforcing the agreement. Thereafter, Louisiana court found, inter alia, that the compromise agreement remained in effect. Subsequently, the Lafayette County circuit court found that, in light of the Louisiana judgment, res judicata applied to a majority of the issues brought by Buffington in the Lafayette County circuit court. The case proceeded to trial, and the circuit court entered judgment against Dorsett. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) res judicata did not bar Buffington's action in Arkansas court; and (2) there was substantial evidence to support the jury's award of damages. View "Dorsett v. Buffington" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Petitioner later filed a second petition seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner raised the same claims of a Brady violation and of ineffective assistance of counsel that he raised in his first petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to present any basis to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. View "Burgie v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the judgment-and-commitment order was invalid on its face and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant appealed and filed several motions and a petition for writ of mandamus related to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions and petition for writ of mandamus moot, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue because his claims did not challenge the facial validity of the judgment and failed to demonstrate a lack of the trial court's jurisdiction. View "Burgie v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to rape. Consequently, the trial court revoked Appellant's probationary sentences for three counts of first-degree carnal abuse. Appellant was sentenced accordingly. The Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) calculated that after serving seventy percent of his thirty-year sentence for the rape conviction, Appellant would be eligible for transfer. Appellant filed a pro se motion for declaratory judgment, contending that the ADC erred in its calculation of his transfer-eligibility date. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show how the ADC miscalculated his transfer-eligiblity date in a manner inconsistent with the law in effect at the time he committed the rape. View "Anderson v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault and sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because the amended felony information charging him incorrectly changed the nature and degree of one of the charged crimes. The circuit court denied the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not establish a basis for holding that the judgment was invalid on its face or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, Appellant's allegation of error was not cognizable in a proceeding for the writ. View "Akbar v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellee pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree false imprisonment. After Appellee was paroled in 1995, he was required to register as a sex offender. In 2012, Appellee sought an order terminating his obligation to register as a sex offender. After a hearing, the circuit court entered an order finding that Appellee was no longer required to register as a sex offender. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Appellee was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others and in therefore finding Appellee was ready to have the obligation to register lifted. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of pseudoephedrine. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant subsequently filed a second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court dismissed. Appellant appealed, contending that his sentence was illegal because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior felony convictions and in allowing introduction of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed where Appellant failed to show the judgment of conviction was invalid on its face or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. View "Nelson v. Norris" on Justia Law