Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property in the armed robbery of two bank employees as they were filling an ATM machine. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a a petition for writ of error coram nobis. As grounds for the writ, Petitioner alleged that the prosecution wrongfully withheld information from the defense that could have been used to impeach the victims' testimony that Petitioner was the perpetrator. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as (1) Petitioner failed to establish a Brady v. Maryland violation; and (2) Petitioner did not act with diligence in bringing his claims. View "Burks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that his sentence of life without parole violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Ark. Const. art. II, 9 because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence. Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Court's original judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders in homicide cases. On remand, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Defendant's capital-murder sentence should be reversed and remanded for resentencing under the discretionary range for a Class Y felony, and a sentencing hearing should be held in which Defendant may present any mitigating evidence as provided in Miller; and (2) Defendant's sentences for aggravated robbery, as well as his sentence enhancement for the use of a firearm, were still valid. View "Whiteside v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his attorney, without consulting him, changed the trial strategy from arguing justification to arguing reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and at the same time, denied him his constitutional right to testify. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant was wrongfully denied his right to testify and to pursue a justification defense, but the errors were harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it found Defendant failed to show there was a reasonable probability that the fact-finder's decision would have been different absent counsel's errors. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief. On the same day, Appellant filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition. In the petitions, Appellant presented three grounds for relief and additionally alleged he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The trial court treated the two pleadings as separate petitions and denied them without a hearing. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the allegations in Appellant's petitions were without merit. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a guilty plea to battery in the second degree and was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Petitioner failed to timely appeal but later sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order, contending that the circuit court failed to send him a copy of the order denying his petition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, as nothing in the record suggested that Petitioner was properly notified that the order had been entered, and the State had not filed a response to Petitioner's motion to refute the allegations contained in it. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of residential burglary and rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant's motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal was denied. Thereafter, Appellant unsuccessfully filed a pro se motion for a transcript of his trial at public expense. Defendant's appeal of the denial of that motion and his motion for reconsideration were both denied. Appellant then filed a second amended notice of appeal designating the order that denied the motion for transcript and the order that denied the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion related to that appeal moot, holding that Appellant failed to show the transcript should be provided to him at no cost, and therefore, the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Koontz v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, concluding that Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments even though Defendant was only fourteen years old at the time he committed the crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that Arkansas's sentencing scheme violated the Eighth Amendment because it imposed a mandatory sentence of life without parole upon Defendant despite his having been under age eighteen at the time he committed capital murder. On remand, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and issued the writ. Remanded for resentencing. View "Jackson v. Norris" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's arguments that the trial court erred by not allowing him to subpoena a juror from his trial and by limiting his examination of a witness at the hearing were precluded from review; (2) the circuit court did not err by not permitting Appellant to amend his petition; (3) the circuit court did not prejudicially err by not invoking the rule to exclude Appellant's trial counsel from hearing the testimony of other witnesses; and (4) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief. View "Adams v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for several crimes, and the circuit court set Defendant's bail at $75,000. A bail-bond agent executed the bond and Defendant was released from jail. When the bail-bond company attempted to present Defendant's check for payment, it found the account had been closed. Defendant was subsequently charged with theft of services for his failure to pay the bail-bond company in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-36-104. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion for directed verdict, finding that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence that Defendant had violated section 5-36-104. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State is not allowed to appeal from a directed verdict acquitting the defendant when the sole issue is the sufficiency of the evidence of the defendant's guilt. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, filed a petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner was represented in the proceeding by his retained attorney (Attorney). No appeal was taken from the order, and Petitioner filed a pro se motion in the Supreme Court seeking to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that he instructed Attorney on the day the order denying postconviction relief was entered to perfect an appeal from the order. The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Attorney was informed by Petitioner within the time period allowed for filing a notice of appeal that Petitioner desired to appeal from the order. The circuit court determined that Petitioner had sufficiently informed Attorney of his desire to appeal and that Attorney was obligated to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Petitioner's pro se motion for belated appeal. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law