Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was found guilty of sexual assault in the second degree and rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of 720 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt, that his conviction was the result of ineffective assistance from his attorney, and that there were a number of errors in his trial. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition did not make the showing required for issuance of the writ, and therefore, the circuit court did not err when it dismissed the petition.View "Holliday v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to two sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the capital murders and two sentences of life imprisonment for the aggravated robberies, to be served consecutively. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and declared the motion filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant failed to make even one meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.View "Winters v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to death and life imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective during the sentencing phase of his capital-murder trial and during opening statements. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief because he could not demonstrate that he was prejudiced as required by the second prong of Strickland v. Washington at either phase of his trial.View "Sales v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment with an additional 180 months’ suspended imposition of sentence for each count. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the proscription against double jeopardy was violated in his case because he was convicted of both delivery of a controlled substance and possession of the controlled substance with intent to deliver. The circuit court denied habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the face of the judgment demonstrated that the judgment was invalid.View "Quezada v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Anita Cooper, who was employed as principal of the Oark, Arkansas schools, was removed from her duties as principal. The Superintendent of the Jasper School District No. 1 of Newton County listed nine reasons as bases for the termination. The District’s Board of Directors then terminated Cooper’s employment. The circuit court reversed the Board’s decision, reinstated Cooper to her position, and awarded Cooper $64,998 in damages. The Superintendent and District appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that Defendants failed to comply with the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the contract in the case at bar created a property right in Cooper’s position as principal of the Oark schools; and (3) the circuit court’s award to Cooper was neither excessive nor amounted to an award of “double retirement.” View "Jasper Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a Rule 37.5 petition for postconviction relief, asserting that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in several respects. The circuit court denied and dismissed Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient under the two-prong standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s petition.View "Decay v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape and incest. Ten years later, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging (1) he never gave permission to “dismiss or waive” a jury trial; (2) Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3-24.7 were not adhered to; and (3) the public defenders allowed perjured testimony to be entered and not challenged. The circuit court denied the habeas petition. Appellant lodged an appeal of that order and filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action and therefore failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.View "Chance v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to rape and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 720 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), arguing that the Director denied him due process of law by applying Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-611 and 5-4-501(c) to his case. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not demonstrate that both the statutory provisions requiring him to be fifty-five years of age and also to have served seventy percent of his sentence should not have been applied to his parole or transfer eligibility, or that he was entitled to any relief by means of a declaratory judgment or writ of mandamus. View "Carroll v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree battery, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. Appellant then filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, raising several allegations of error. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claims were either not within the purview of his petition to correct an illegal sentence or without merit.View "Atkins v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to three counts of rape and was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the writ should issue on the ground that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel with respect to a plea bargain that was offered to him. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims in the petition were clearly outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding, and therefore, Appellant failed to establish that the writ should issue.View "Schrader v. State" on Justia Law