Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Plaintiff was hired as the chief of police for the City of McRae. The Mayor terminated Plaintiff's employment in 2009 for allegedly falsifying fire-department records and for insubordination. The city council voted not to overturn the Mayor's decision to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complaint in 2009 against the City, the Mayor, and City alderman, asserting (1) Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act because they did not give sufficient notice of the city council meeting; (2) Plaintiff's due process rights were violated; (3) the Mayor's termination of Plaintiff's employment violated her rights under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act; and (4) Plaintiff's termination without just cause violated her rights under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion. The Mayor appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in not granting the Mayor qualified immunity on the claims brought by Plaintiff. Remanded. View "Sullivan v. Coney" on Justia Law

Appellee pleaded guilty to first-degree false imprisonment and aggravated assault. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asking the circuit court to vacate the entry of his guilty plea due to a lack of advice from counsel about immigration consequences as required under Padilla v. Kentucky. After multiple hearings, the circuit court granted the petition and vacated Appellee's guilty pleas and sentence. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court erred as a matter of law by expanding the grounds for a writ of error coram nobis to include claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the result of the circuit court's decision was to improperly expand the grounds for coram-nobis relief to include claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, and therefore the court erred as a matter of law in granting the writ. View "State v. Tejeda-Acosta" on Justia Law

The circuit court found Defendant guilty, as a habitual offender, to two drug offenses. The court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction with an additional ten years' suspended imposition of sentence plus costs and fees for each conviction. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court (1) illegally sentenced Defendant because the statutory-minimum sentence for a habitual offender was not imposed, and (2) erred by not imposing a fine against Defendant pursuant to the applicable statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court (1) exceeded its statutory authority by imposing a sentence of five years when at least a ten-year sentence was required; and (2) did not err by failing to impose a fine pursuant to the controlled-substances statute. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. O'Quinn" on Justia Law

In 2011, the State filed a petition to remove Sheriff Kenny Cassell from office, alleging that Cassell had pled guilty in 1979 to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 659, that Cassell had committed the crime while serving as a deputy sheriff, that Cassell acknowledged the conviction, that Cassell was elected sheriff in 2010, and that, under the Arkansas Constitution, Cassell was barred from holding office. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Cassell, concluding that Cassell's crime was for theft by receiving, and although the crime involved dishonesty, the theft conviction was not sufficient for removal because it did not impugn the integrity of the office or directly impact Cassell's ability to serve as an elected official. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the offense was an "infamous crime" under Ark. Const. art. V, 9 because it involved dishonesty; and (2) the circuit court erroneously determined that Cassell's theft conviction alone was not enough to require removal without some proof that the conviction impugned the integrity of the elected office or directly impacted Cassell's ability to serve. View "State v. Cassell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to death and life imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding Appellant's counsel provided effective assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court failed to make specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 37.5(i). Remanded for entry of a written order in compliance with Rule 37.5(i). View "Sales v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana. Appellant subsequently filed a timely pro se petition seeking postconviction relief, asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance during trial. The trial court denied the petition, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying postconviction relief, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate clear error in the trial court's ruling regarding some of his points on appeal; (2) other issues raised by Appellant were not properly preserved for appellate review; and (3) the trial court's ordered complied with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3. View "Hogan v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged by felony information with two counts of rape and one count of robbery. After the jury deadlocked, the circuit court declared a mistrial. Prior to the retrial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the circuit court erred in declaring a mistrial and that retrying him would constitute double jeopardy. The circuit cout denied the motion. Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial on the grounds that the jury was deadlocked; and (2) the circuit court erred in sending the bailiff into the jury chambers without counsel, but the court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss on these grounds, as the proper remedy was a new trial, which Defendant was to receive. View "Gold v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the circuit court convicted Defendant of aggravated assault on a family or household member. The court also determined that a child was present during the commission of the offense. The sentencing order imposed an enhancement for committing the offense in the presence of a child. For the enhancement, the court sentenced Defendant to one year incarceration, suspended. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court imposed an illegal sentence by suspending the sentence for the enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) jurisdiction of the State's appeal was properly in the Court; and (2) the circuit court lacked the authority to suspend the sentence for the enhancement. View "State v. Colvin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder, battery in the first degree, and two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently field a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant raised five points on appeal. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed after having considered all of the arguments raised by Appellant on appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Norris v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an allegedly illegal detention, (2) evidence where the allegedly warrantless search of his vehicle was not reasonable, and (3) the custodial statement that allegedly violated his Miranda rights and the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) the detention of Defendant was legal because the purpose of the legal traffic stop was ongoing; (2) law enforcement had sufficient probable cause to search Defendant's vehicle; and (3) the custodial statement was admissible where it was made after Miranda warnings that were clearly effective. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law