Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable under Rule 37.1; and (2) Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance did not meet the standard under Washington v. Strickland for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Leach v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of three counts of rape. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 alleging that he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. Appellant appealed and sought by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to establish that his trial counsel provided constitutionally defective assistance. View "Johnston v. State" on Justia Law

In 1979, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to attempted capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was seventeen when he committed this offense. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se complaint for declaratory relief alleging that the parole-eligibility statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. Relying on Graham v. Florida, Appellant requested that the circuit court find that his life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and that he be resentenced to a term of years. The circuit court dismissed the action on summary judgment. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under Arkansas law, attempted capital murder is not a homicide offense for purposes of Graham. Remanded. View "Bramlett v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as an accomplice to both capital murder and kidnapping. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the capital-murder charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the introduction of the video and transcript of Appellant’s interview with police did not violate her right to confront witnesses against her under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment where the police repeated statements made by co-defendants who did not testify at trial because the co-defendants’ statements in this case were not hearsay. View "Swain v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was deprived the effective assistance of counsel and that he was denied a fair trial stemming from a motion to change venue. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. Appellant appealed and moved for extension of time to file his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding (1) Appellant did not meet his burden to overcome the presumption that trial counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of professional assistance; and (2) Appellant’s claim of trial error was not grounds for relief under Rule 37.1. View "Bowden v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief as well as an amended petition, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not raise an objection to ensure that a self-defense instruction was given with respect to the lesser-included offenses and because he did not secure the testimony of an expert witness concerning the effects of the drug PCP, which was detected in the victim’s system. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims. View "Rasul v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 alleging eight grounds for relief. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant’s attorney appealed from that decision on behalf of Appellant, but because of abstract deficiencies in the brief that had been filed by the attorney, the Supreme Court ordered rebriefing. Appellant then filed a substitute brief. In his appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 37.1 petition because his defense counsel was ineffective and that he was entitled to a new Rule 37 proceeding and appointed counsel because his previous Rule 37 counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant’s request for appointment of counsel and his request to remand for a new hearing, holding (1) the allegations in Appellant’s appeal were such that it was conclusive on the face of the petition that no relief was warranted; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to a remand of his Rule 37 case for renewed proceedings on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. View "Mancia v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and two sentencing enhancements. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition seeking postconviction relief, asserting that he had entered the pleas as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, finding that Defendant had failed to show that counsel was ineffective and in error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant’s petition made sufficient allegations to create a question of fact that his counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the circuit court applied the wrong standard in reviewing Defendant’s petition. Remanded. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to murder in the first degree, aggravated robbery, first-degree escape and other charges stemming from his escape from a detention center after his attack on a correctional officer and his subsequent attacks on correctional officers at another facility. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in remanded in part, holding that the findings and record did not conclusively show that Appellant was entitled to no relief on the first two of his claims. Remanded. View "Beverage v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1982, Petitioner was found guilty of capital felony murder and first-degree battery. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently sought leave from the Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court with a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The Court denied the petition. In 2013, Petitioner filed a second petition to proceed under Rule 37.1, raising allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Petitioner did raise all issues for postconviction relief in the original petition, the petition was dismissed. Petitioner then filed a third petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition under Rule 37.1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to proceed again under the Rule. View "Abernathy v. State" on Justia Law