Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Petitioner, who was incarcerated for multiple felony convictions, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal but did not tender the record to the Supreme Court as required by Ark. R. App P.-Crim. 4(b). Appellant later filed a motion and amended motion seeking to lodge the record belatedly and proceed with the appeal, claiming, among other things, that he was not informed how to perfect his appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion and amended motion, holding that Petitioner did not show good cause for failing to timely tender the record on appeal. View "Day v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Kylie Chitwood was born in 1990 during the marriage of Gordon and Jane Chitwood. In 1993, Gordon and Jane divorced, and Gordon was ordered to pay child support. In 2011, Kylie, then twenty years old, filed a complaint against Gordon to collect an alleged arrearage in child support that had accrued from 1999 to 2004. Gordon moved for summary judgment, arguing that Kylie’s complaint was barred under the law-of-the-case doctrine because in previous litigation Gordon had prevailed against Jane on her claim for unpaid child support for the same period. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Gordon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kylie’s present suit was barred by Jane’s previous suit. View "Chitwood v. Chitwood" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts each of aggravated robbery and theft of property. The charges arose from the aggravated robbery of two different banks, two days apart, and the charges were joined for trial. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 672 months imprisonment. After the judgment was affirmed, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising claims of trial error and insufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court denied relief because Appellant failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action and thus failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Chambliss v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to a charge of theft of property and received a sentence of 120 days’ imprisonment in jail and sixty months’ probation. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed. Because Appellant was released from jail after filing his appeal, the Supreme Court held that he was no longer entitled to postconviction relief. Moreover, the Court held that even if Appellant’s claims were not moot, the appeal was without merit. View "Thurmond v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, the State filed a complaint seeking forfeiture of $7550 in United States currency. The complaint named both the $7550 and Patricia West as defendants in the caption. West filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the State failed to obtain service on her within 120 days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. The circuit court granted West’s motion to dismiss, concluding that because the State knew that West had an interest in the currency, West must be subject personally to the jurisdiction of the court. On appeal, the State asserted that West was not actually a defendant but only an interest holder in the currency, and the inclusion of West as a named defendant in the complaint did not change the substance of the action as an in rem proceeding against the currency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because the State did not personally serve West, who was listed as a defendant in the caption of the complaint, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the action against West. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree murder, among other offenses. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief, holding that because Appellant’s petition was not in compliance with Rule 37.1(c), it should not have been accepted for filing and did not act to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to consider the merits of the petition. View "Slocum v. State" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child. The court of appeals affirmed. In 2014, Appellant filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Court denied the petition. Prior to the disposition of the petition, Appellant filed the instant second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, as well as a pro se petition for leave to file an amended petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and motion, holding that Petitioner failed to raise any cognizable claims that would support issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. View "Pitts v. State" on Justia Law

In 1986, Appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and battery in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Appellant filed in the circuit court in the county where he was in custody a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis and for writ of habeas corpus, contending, among other claims, that he was actually innocent of the offenses. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motion for appointment of counsel, holding (1) the circuit court where Appellant was incarcerated did not have authority to consider Appellant’s writ of error coram nobis; and (2) Appellant did not state a ground on which the writ of habeas corpus could issue. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority filed a complaint for condemnation and declaration of taking, seeking to take property owned by Appellants. That same day, Ozark deposited $66,986, the fair-market-appraisal amount of the property, with the clerk of court. Appellants challenged the amount deposited, claiming it was not sufficient compensation. After a trial, the jury awarded Appellants $341,500 in compensation for the property. Thereafter, Appellants filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 18-15-605(b). The circuit court denied the motion, finding that section 18-15-605(b) was not applicable to Appellants’ case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that section 18-15-605(b) was not applicable to Appellants’ case and in thereby denying Appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees. View "Giles v. Ozark Mountain Reg'l Pub. Water Auth." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of delivery of crack cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Appellant’s counsel (1) did not render ineffective assistance by failing to produce testimony that was promised on opening statement; but (2) provided ineffective assistance by neglecting to make proper motions for directed verdict. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. View "Conley v. State" on Justia Law