Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of a controlled substance, and maintaining a drug premises. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he was denied due process of law and that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on the remainder of his claims. View "Mathis v. State" on Justia Law

Jon Hopkins submitted multiple requests to Brinkley Water & Sewer Department (“BW&S”) for the home address and payment history of Kathryn Harris, a municipal-utility ratepayer and resident of the City of Brinkley. BW&S provided a redacted history of Harris’s account history but did not disclose her home address. The circuit court found that BW&S was not required to provide Hopkins with Harris’s home address, a “public record” as defined by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the ratepayer’s home address was exempt from disclosure, as (1) the Federal Trade Commission’s Red Flags Rule does not preempt the FOIA’s disclosure requirements; (2) BW&S failed to offer proof that any customer’s home address qualifies as a “personal matter” and thus was “constitutionally protectable” under McCambridge v. City of Little Rock; and (3) Harris’s home address was available for inspection by Hopkins, irrespective of his purpose in seeking access. View "Hopkins v. City of Brinkley" on Justia Law

During an approximately seven-month period, Defendant engaged in online chats with a person identified on Yahoo internet service as “Amanda.” Amanda was actually Detective Donald Eversole, who had set up a profile for a fictional fifteen-year-old girl on an internet-romance chat room. Defendant and Eversole exchanged hundreds of messages through the chat room, which included messages about age and sexual experience and containing photos of each other and sexually explicit exchanges. Defendant was subsequently found guilty by a jury of internet stalking of a child. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for directed verdict, as there was not substantial evidence to find that Defendant’s conduct satisfied the statutory requirement of acting “in an effort to arrange a meeting.” View "Holcomb v. State" on Justia Law

Theresa Holbrook requested her medical records from Millard Henry Clinic. Healthport, Inc., a private company that had a contract with Millard Henry Clinic to fulfill such requests, obtained copies of Holbrook’s requested medical records. Healthport subsequently sent Holbrook invoices for the records, including sales tax. Holbrook, individually and on behalf of all other Arkansans similarly situated, filed a class-action complaint seeking damages and requesting that the court find, inter alia, that Healthport illegally collected sales taxes for retrieving and copying her medical records. Holbrook later filed an amended complaint containing allegations against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. The circuit court granted Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and denied Holbrook’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that the gross-receipts-tax statute imposes a sales tax on a patient’s ability to obtain a copy of the patient’s own medical records; and (2) the Arkansas Access to Medical Records Act does not exempt a patient’s request for copies of the patient’s medical information from any otherwise applicable tax or charge. View "Holbrook v. Healthport, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1993, Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted rape. In 2013, Appellant filed an application to be relieved of the obligation to register as a sex offender. After a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s application on the basis that he had failed to present evidence that he was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and declared moot the motion Appellant filed in relation to the appeal, holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof required to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. View "Haynes v. State" on Justia Law

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., a gas pipeline company that has the power of eminent domain, filed a petition to condemn an easement on property owned by GSS, LLC. The circuit court entered an order of possession, and, after a trial, awarded GSS $64,000 as just compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of value of a contiguous parcel of land from a separate case; (2) did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of CenterPoint on GSS’s counterclaims; and (3) did not err in granting summary judgment to CenterPoint. View "GSS, LLC v. Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 2009, Appellant was found guilty of rape and second-degree sexual assault. Appellant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct his sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, contending that his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and claims of trial error did not present grounds for relief under section 16-90-111; and (2) to the extent that any of the issues raised were cognizable in a petition under section 16-90-111 to correct a sentence illegally imposed, because Appellant’s petition was not timely filed, he was not entitled to relief on these claims. View "Gilliland v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction seeking to compel the ADC to recalculate his parole-eligibility date. The circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and subsequently filed a motion to file a belated brief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for declaratory judgment, and therefore, failed to provide a basis for a writ of mandamus to issue. View "Cridge v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was real property owned by Lacy Bryant at the time of his death. Lacy left a will devising a life estate in the realty to his wife, Naomi, and devising the remainder to his youngest child, Brenda Osborn. Lacy’s will was never admitted to probate. Instead, Osborn filed an affidavit for collection of small estate, and later executed and filed an “Administrator’s Deed” transferring the real property from Lacy’s estate to herself. After Naomi died, Appellants, some of Lacy’s heirs, filed an action against Osborn, asking the court to, among other things, declare that the terms of the will were invalid and that Lacy had died intestate. Ultimately, the circuit court found that Osborn had fully complied with the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 28-41-101, the statute governing the collection of small estates, and that the Administrator’s Deed was a valid conveyance of Lacy’s real property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Osborn satisfied the statutory procedures for collection of a small estate and that the Administrator’s Deed was a valid conveyance. Remanded. View "Bryant v. Osborn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. Appellant’s sentence and conviction were affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed an Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5 petition, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied Appellant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds that his counsel did not object to a change of venue and because his counsel failed to secure and present the testimony of one of the investigating officers of the murders. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law