Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1994, Appellant was found guilty of multiple felony offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate term of forty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition to correct his sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, contending that the sentenced imposed was illegal because Appellant was charged by information filed by the prosecuting attorney and not by grand jury indictment as required by the Fifth Amendment. The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions related to the appeal moot, holding that the allegation that the charging instrument was invalid was without merit. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

In 1990, a jury found Petitioner guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. Petitioner later filed a pleading asking the trial court to rule on the merits of the issues under the nunc pro tunc rule. Petitioner subsequently filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the circuit court had not acted on the pleading in a timely manner. The trial court responded that the delay was due to the fact that the pleading was not contained in the record and noted that Petitioner claimed the pleading sought a ruling on Petitioner's original petition for postconviction relief, not the subsequent petition. The Supreme Court denying mandamus relief, holding (1) the circuit court's failure to act on Petitioner's motion was simply due to clerical error; and (2) on the merits, the circuit court acted on the underlying motion. View "Nelson v. Glover" on Justia Law

In 2000, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petition subsequently filed a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming that the prosecution did not inform the defense that a deal had been made with a prosecution witness, who was Petitioner's former cellmate. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Petitioner did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the witness's testimony or that the judgment would not have been rendered if the jury knew of a deal between the prosecution and the witness, whose testimony was not inculpatory; and (2) Petitioner did not exercise due diligence in bringing his claim. View "McFerrin v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder. The judgment-and-commitment order showed that Appellant was sentenced to hard labor in the Arkansas Department of Correction for life. The Supreme Court affirmed. Later, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, alleging that his sentence exceeded the statutory sentencing authority of the circuit court and was a violation of Appellant's right against cruel and unusual punishment. The circuit court denied the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for a hearing. The Supreme Court denied the petition because Appellant had not demonstrated that the Court's opinions contained errors of fact or law. View "McArty v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The petition contained a statement that the facts in the petition were true, correct, and complete, but the statement was not sworn before a notary or other officer authorized to administer oaths. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition did not bear the sworn verification required by rule 37.1. Therefore, the petition did not act to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to consider the merits of the petition, and consequently, the appellate court also lacked jurisdiction. View "Martin v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to first-degree domestic battery, second-degree battery, and second-degree terroristic threatening. No appeal was taken from the judgment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. Appellant then filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence, in which he alleged that his sentence was illegal because trial counsel's advice regarding his parole eligibility was erroneous. The circuit court denied the petition. Before the Supreme Court were Appellant's motions related to the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot after treating his petition was treated as one for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant was barred from submitting a subsequent petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. View "Lambert v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant lodged in the Supreme Court an appeal from three orders that denied a number of pleadings that Appellant had filed in the trial court where he was convicted of capital murder in 1995. Appellant filed his brief in the appeal, and, after that, filed a motion to introduce newly discovered evidence. The State filed its brief, and Appellant tendered a reply brief along with a motion to extend the page limit. Later, Appellant filed three more motions. The Supreme Court (1) granted the motion to extend the page limit on the reply brief; (2) denied the motions to introduce newly discovered evidence and compel; and (3) affirmed the trial court's denial of relief in the three orders. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was a prisoner serving a life sentence on a rape conviction that followed his retrial after the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an error for not requiring the prosecutor to file a bill of particulars. In 2012, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the county where he was incarcerated, and the circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant lodged in the Supreme Court an appeal of the order dismissing the petition, and he filed motions seeking the appointment of counsel for the appeal and an extension of time in which to file his brief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that Appellant's claims were without merit and that he could not prevail on appeal. View "Bliss v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Ten death-row inmates filed amended complaints against Appellants, the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and its director, asserting several causes of action. Relevant to this appeal, the prisoners (1) asserted that the Method of Execution Act (MEA) was unconstitutional on the basis of separation of powers; (2) claimed that the use of non-FDA approved chemicals purchased from a foreign driving school violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the prisoners' due process rights; and (3) asked for injunctive relief to enjoin the ADC from executing prisoners with the non-FDA approved chemicals. The circuit court concluded (1) the MEA was unconstitutional; and (2) prisoners' additional claims were moot because ADC had disposed of all and was unable to obtain any additional lethal chemicals from the overseas supplier. The court then enjoined ADC from using any sodium thiopental obtained in violation of any state or federal law. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's order to the extent it declared the MEA unconstitutional and found the additional claims were moot; but (2) reversed the circuit court's order striking language from the statute, as the entire statute was unconstitutional, and granting injunctive relief. View "Hobbs v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant Brittany Mahavier appealed orders of the circuit court granting a permanent guardianship of her son to her mother, Appellee Teresa Mahavier, and declaring the Arkansas Statutes on guardianships to be unconstitutional. Appellant stipulated below that there was sufficient evidence to establish a need for the guardianship but did not agree to the guardianship so she could maintain her constitutional challenges based on equal protection and substantive due process. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments because the Attorney General was not notified of the constitutional challenges to the guardianship statutes, as required by Ark. Code Ann. 16-111-106(b), and there was not full and complete adversarial development of the constitutional issues. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for compliance with the notice requirement of section 16-111-106(b). View "In re Guardianship of A.M." on Justia Law