Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Mitchell Johnson entered a plea of guilty to financial identity fraud, theft by receiving, and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner did not timely file a notice of appeal from the order. Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that the circuit court failed to send him a copy of the order denying his postconviction relief petition, as it was required to do under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(d). The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that the failure of the court to abide by Rule 37.3(d) established good cause for Petitioner's failure to timely file a notice of appeal.

Appellant Dwight Jackson pled guilty to one count of delivery of a counterfeit substance and was sentenced by the circuit court to ninety-six months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging (1) he did not sign his plea agreement in open court and had been coerced into signing the agreement, (2) his plea of guilty was not made voluntarily or knowingly, and (3) the plea statement he signed did not contain the mandatory range of punishment, and the trial court did not explain the range of punishment to him. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the record did not contain a transcript of the plea hearing, the Court was unable to conduct an adequate review.

Appellant Clarence Ashby was found guilty of rape, for which a sentence of thirty years' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging (1) he was denied due process by not being tried in juvenile court, (2) there was no DNA evidence to establish his identity as the offender, (3) witness statement were unreliable and inadmissible, and (4) he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition. Appellant appealed and filed several motions relating to his appeal. The Supreme Court declared the motions moot and dismissed the appeal, holding that because Appellant failed to state cognizable claims, he did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.

Appellant Rodney Williams was found guilty by a jury of felony murder in the first degree and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. Appellant appealed and filed motions regarding that appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that (1) Appellant failed to state cognizable claims for a writ of habeas corpus because none of his claims raised a question of jurisdiction or established that the commitment was invalid on its face; and (2) therefore, Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.

Appellant Sherman Watson appealed the denial of his pro se petition for postconviction relief and filed a number of motions regarding the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari and declared his motions moot, holding that the trial court's ruling denying relief on the claims was not clearly error where (1) the trial court properly treated Appellant's postconviction petition as timely filed, but (2) Appellant did not carry his burden to demonstrate a meritorious claim for postconviction relief as (i) several of Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 petition, and (ii) Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective.

Appellant Jonathan Olivarez pled guilty to charges of delivery of methamphetamine, attempted murder in the first degree, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant timely filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to correctly inform him of his parole eligibility. The trial court denied Appellant's petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the transcript of the plea hearing and the alleged positive misrepresentations of trial counsel regarding Appellant's parole eligibility, there was no conclusive showing that Appellant was entitled to no relief as determined by the trial court. Remanded.

Petitioner Mychael Kinard entered a conditional plea to simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The plea was entered on July 13, 2010, at which time Petitioner filed a statement setting out that he was entering the plea conditioned on an appeal of the issue of whether the denial of his motion to suppress evidence was a correct ruling. Petitioner's attorney never perfected the appeal. Petitioner later filed a motion seeking leave from the Supreme Court to proceed with a belated appeal. The Court granted the motion, holding that because Petitioner's counsel was timely made aware by Petitioner that Petitioner desired to appeal, counsel was obligated to file a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant Charles Green was convicted of four counts of rape and one count of terroristic threatening in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for continuance; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree terroristic threatening as a lesser-included offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree and first-degree sexual abuse as a lesser-included offense of rape; and (3) the circuit court did not err in refusing to order the victim's counselor to disclose the diagnosis of the victim.

Appellant, an inmate incarcerated in the state Department of Correction, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county where he was incarcerated, alleging several grounds for the writ. The circuit court dismissed the petition and Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court were two motions filed by Appellant. The Court declared the motions moot and dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that because none of Appellant's claims in his petition raised a question of jurisdiction or asserted that the commitment was invalid on its face, Appellant failed to state cognizable claims, and he did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.

After Appellant was found guilty of two nonviolent felony offenses, Appellant was released on bond subject to the condition that he not leave the state without written permission. Appellant subsequently left the state without written permission. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of escape in the second degree. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the State failed to prove that he was "in custody," which was a required element of the charged offense. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed, holding that although Appellant violated the conditions of the order allowing his release, he did not escape from custody, and the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict.