Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On March 3, 2014, Valerie Bailey filed as a candidate for the position of circuit judge in the May 20, 2014 election. Kristen Hulse filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a declaration judgment, alleging that Bailey was not qualified and was ineligible to be a candidate for circuit court judge. On March 19, 2014, the circuit court entered an order granting Hulse’s requested relief, declaring that Bailey was not eligible to seek the office of circuit judge. The deadline for printing ballots was March 21, 2014. On April 22, 2014, Bailey filed an amended notice of expedited appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis of mootness, concluding that any decision by the Court would amount to an advisory opinion because the ballots had been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and presented to early voters. View "Bailey v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Pulaski County Election Commission and some of its commissioners and the Pulaski County Circuit/County Clerk (collectively, “PCEC”) filed a petition for a declaratory judgment, claiming that certain emergency rules promulgated by the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners (“ASBEC”) relating to absentee voters were unconstitutional. The circuit court concluded (1) Act 595 of 2013, which amended the State election code to require that voters provide proof of identity when voting, was unconstitutional; and (2) the emergency rules were also unconstitutional because they were derived from the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that the rules relating to absentee voters promulgated by the ASBEC were unconstitutional; but (2) erred in declaring Act 595 unconstitutional because that issue was not pled or developed before the circuit court. View "Ark. State Bd. of Election Comm'rs v. Pulaski County Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of capital murder. The conviction resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and commercial burglary and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 240 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. The petition was denied. Appellant appealed and filed a motion to have his brief-in-chief duplicated at public expense. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motion, holding that Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were not sufficient to establish that he was entitled to postconviction relief. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1977, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was sixteen years old at the time of the offense. In 2013, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that, in accordance with Miller v. Alabama, his life sentence was invalid on its face because the sentencer did not hold a hearing to consider mitigating factors relating to his youth before imposing the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Miller was inapplicable to Appellant’s case because Appellant’s 1977 sentence to life imprisonment for first-degree murder was not mandatory and the sentencer was permitted to consider sentencing-related mitigating evidence. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After the Pulaski County Humane Society (PCHS) seized many dogs from Defendant’s premises, Defendant was charged with three felony counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and ten misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals for keeping her dogs without access to shade in excessively hot temperatures. The jury found Defendant guilty of five misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to 100 hours of community service and payment of a $500 fine. In a supplemental order, the court ordered Defendant to pay costs to PCHS of $6,425 and divested Defendant of custody of the five dogs that she had been convicted of abusing. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence related to the seizure of the dogs. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence but dismissed Defendant’s appeal and the State’s cross-appeal of the circuit court’s supplemental order, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; but (2) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the State’s petition for divestment and Defendant’s petition for custody of the dogs. View "Nance v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced, as a habitual offender, to life imprisonment. After the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied relief without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred (1) in relying on email correspondence that was attached to the prosecutor’s response to Appellant’s petition and was not part of the file, record, or petition; and (2) in denying Appellant’s petition in the absence of a hearing because the files and records did not conclusively show that Appellant was entitled to no relief. View "Guevara v. State" on Justia Law

On December 6, 2011, Appellant was found to have violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in a federal case. The order stated that Appellant was released into the custody of the United States Marshall to serve the federal sentence. On December 15, 2011, Appellant pled guilty to rape, sexual assault in the second degree, and theft of property. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court on the grounds that, despite the December 6, 2011 order placing him in the custody of the United States Marshall, he had been returned to the ADC on the Arkansas judgments. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Fortier v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant’s probation was revoked for his convictions on drug-related charges in two cases. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for each case. Appellant later filed two petitions for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied relief based on Appellant’s failure to timely file his petition for postconviction relief. Appellant appealed from the two orders. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the denial of relief on Appellant’s postconviction claims because Appellant was no longer incarcerated for the judgments reflecting the convictions that were at issue. View "Criswell v. State" on Justia Law

In 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentences from three previous convictions, a felony hot-check conviction, a second-degree forgery conviction, and a possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. The circuit court revoked Appellant’s suspended sentences on each charge and imposed a sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment with an additional eight years’ suspended imposition of sentence, to run consecutively. Appellant appealed, contending that the fourteen-year sentence imposed upon his revocation was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the fourteen-year term of imprisonment and modified the two suspended sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the term of imprisonment, holding (1) Appellant’s sentences for second-degree forgery and possession of drug paraphernalia were illegal to the extent the circuit court ordered multiple periods of suspension to run consecutively rather than concurrently; and (2) Appellant’s suspended sentences on those same two charges were illegal to the extent that they ran consecutively to the imprisonment imposed for Appellant’s felony hot-check conviction. View "Walden v. State" on Justia Law