Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, in inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the ADC and three of its employees in their official capacities. In his petition, Appellant claimed that Appellees acted maliciously and arbitrarily in undertaking a disciplinary action against Appellant. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petition did not set forth facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. View "Swanigan v. Ark. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

Dwayne Cherry was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and theft by receiving. Cherry filed a motion to suppress contraband discovered on his person after a traffic stop. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a patdown search and that Cherry did not consent to the search of the interior of his clothing. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by concluding that consent does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment and, consequently, adding reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to a valid consent to search under Ark. R. Crim. P. 11. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the appeal involved only disputed factual findings, it was not a proper State appeal. View "State v. Cherry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the petition on August 22, 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal and also denied a motion that Defendant filed to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider some issues that he claimed had not been addressed by the trial court in the August 22, 2013 order. On February 4, 2014, Defendant filed a motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the October 4, 2013 order that had denied the motions for a ruling on certain issues and the motion to set aside the original order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Defendant did not state good cause for his failure to file a timely amended notice of appeal. View "Craigg v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) failing to stop trial and conduct a competency hearing on its own volition; (2) failing to grant a mistrial after Appellant had an outburst in front of the jury, as the fundamental fairness of the trial was not affected; and (3) requiring Appellant to wear a stun belt, shackles and handcuffs for the remainder of the trial after his outburst in the courtroom, as Appellant’s own conduct brought about the need for restraints, and he was not denied his right to a fair trial. View "Britton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, forgery, and fraudulent use of a credit card. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for a copy of the record at public expense. View "Anthony v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to several felony offenses and was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of 300 months’ imprisonment. More than eight months after the judgment had been entered, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct or reduce the sentence, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petition was not timely filed because Appellant filed it more than ninety days after the judgment had been entered of record. View "Ussery v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree battery. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview and call certain witnesses. The circuit court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief, where Appellant did not provide any support for his conclusory claims that counsel was ineffective and made no showing that counsel committed any specific error that prejudiced the defense. View "Stiggers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape of his step-granddaughter and sentenced to a term of 480 months. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in rejecting without a hearing Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to defective charging language and jury instruction; and (2) failing to investigate and utilize evidence of a third party’s semen found on the victim’s pants. View "McDaniels v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant, clerk for the City of Harrisburg, filed a complaint and petition for writ of quo warranto seeking to compel the City to pay her wages due for the joint position of city clerk/treasurer and alleging that the present treasurer of the City was occupying the office without legal authority. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Appellant, as city clerk, was not the successor to the former office of city clerk/treasurer and was therefore not entitled to any additional wages. The circuit court denied the City’s summary judgment motion and then dismissed Appellant’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that the ordinance relied upon by Appellant did not recognize and fund the combined office of city clerk/treasurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the ordinance did not join the offices of city clerk and treasurer so as to establish a combined office of city clerk/treasurer. View "King v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

In two cases, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and possession of firearms by a felon. Appellant later filed a petition under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas seeking DNA and latent-fingerprint testing of certain evidence, along with other relief. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that the petition did not state a basis for relief under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish a basis for relief under the Act, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying relief. View "Edwards v. State" on Justia Law