Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Gregory Smith entered a plea of guilty to six felony criminal offenses and was sentenced as a habitual offender. Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Later, Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the trial court's order, contending that the circumstances of his incarceration prevented him from filing a timely notice of appeal. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion, holding that he failed to preserve his right to appeal the postconviction order and did not meet his burden of demonstrating that there was good cause for the failure to do so.

The board of directors of the City of Hot Springs adopted an ordinance establishing a stormwater utility fund and imposing a stormwater utility fee on municipal utility accounts within the city's corporate limits. Appellants, the mayor and several members of the board of directors, appealed, arguing the circuit court's decision upholding the ordinance was erroneous because (1) the City failed to comply with the authorizing legislation, Ark. Code Ann. 14-235-223(a)(1), when it implemented the fee, and therefore, the fee constituted an illegal exaction; and (2) as the fee constituted a tax, the fee required voter approval. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the presumption of constitutionality of the ordinance was not overcome, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err in upholding the ordinance.

A jury found Appellant Oliver Leak guilty of battery in the first degree and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied without an appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying the petition on the basis that (1) Appellant's challenges to the investigatory process and Appellant's assertion that evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest could have been raised at trial or argued on appeal, and (2) Appellant failed to overcome the presumption that counsel was effective in his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellant Percy Henderson was convicted of capital felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Later, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him as he was never arraigned on, or entered a plea to, an amended information that charged him with capital felony murder. The circuit court denied the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant's petition on the basis that Appellant's allegation of improper arraignment was a factual issue that should have been addressed on appeal and that, even if there was an error in the amended information, the error would not take away the court's jurisdiction.

A jury found Appellant Michael Green guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, for which he was sentenced as an habitual offender. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, finding that the twenty-one page brief Appellant filed with the petition violated the ten-page-limit rule on petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Appellant's petition without a hearing, and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in not considering Appellant's brief tendered in support of the petition.

Appellant Mark Eason pled guilty to a charge of sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to sixty months' probation. Subsequently, the circuit court revoked Appellant's probation after concluding that Appellant had violated the conditions of his probation, basing its finding on the State's allegation that he had committed the offense of arson. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief on the grounds that Appellant was subjected to malicious prosecution, was falsely imprisoned, and was denied due process as the allegations were not cognizable in a proceeding seeking relief pursuant to a postconviction petition.

Appellant Lloyd Callie was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. Appellant filed a motion to vacate his judgment and commitment in the circuit court, asserting that his due process rights were violated by the admission of certain evidence pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b). The circuit court correctly treated the motion as one for postconviction relief and then denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had previously filed a petition for postconviction relief and did not demonstrate that his first petition was denied without prejudice, Appellant was not entitled to file a second petition for postconviction relief.

Appellant Robert Burton was convicted of aggravated robbery and residential burglary. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Burton's counsel was not ineffective for failing to (1) voir dire two potential jurors to determine bias or prejudice as Burton failed to demonstrate any actual bias or prejudice, (2) seek suppression of the pretrial and in-court identification of him by one of the victims as Burton failed to explain what form the prejudice took or how serious it was, and (3) object to the admission of Burton's prior felony convictions as the prior convictions were admissible pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-502.

Appellant Roger Bradford filed three pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus, (1) challenging his 1982 convictions for three counts of deliver of a controlled substance, his 1990 conviction for second-degree escape, and his 1994 conviction for second-degree escape, and (2) claiming that those convictions were used to enhance a subsequent sentence. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's challenge to his convictions was moot as the sentences he received for those convictions had expired and any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy.

Appellant Shawna Biddle pled guilty to ten counts of rape and was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for reduction of sentence, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. The circuit court properly treated the motion as one seeking postconviction relief and then denied the petition, dismissing it with prejudice. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's plea was freely, voluntarily, and knowingly entered; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective.