Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Terrance Walton was convicted of breaking and entered and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his petition because counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as, had he done so, Appellant would have been found not guilty, constituted a direct attack on the judgment and, therefore, was not cognizable under a postconviction relief proceeding; and (2) the circuit court correctly concluded that Appellant was not unfairly prejudiced by his attorney's failure to state specific grounds in support of his motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Petitioner William Tubbs pled guilty to charges of theft by receiving and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident and fleeing. Petitioner filed a pro se motion for belated appeal of three orders entered in the circuit court and, additionally, filed two motions to amend the motion. The Supreme Court remanded for findings on attorney error after the first motion to amend. The circuit court found there was no attorney error. In his latest amended motion, Petitioner claimed that he did not receive notice of the entry of orders setting the amount of restitution. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding that because there was no attorney error or other good cause for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal established in Petitioner's motions, the Court did not need to consider further his request to proceed with an appeal of the orders.

Appellant Frederick Smith pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count each of felon in possession of a firearm, committing a terroristic act, and aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 600 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for habeas relief, arguing that his sentences were void and illegal under several theories. The circuit court summarily denied his petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant failed to state probable cause for issuance of the writ, no hearing was warranted; (2) Appellant's argument that the circuit court lacked authority to enter an amended judgment after he had filed his notice of appeal was without merit; and (3) Appellant's assertion that his sentence on the offense of felon in possession of a firearm was illegal was meritless because it did not raise a question of jurisdiction for purposes of habeas corpus relief.

Appellant Barry Simpson entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because the court violated procedural rules when the plea was taken. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted because he raised no argument that called into question the court's jurisdiction to accept his plea of guilty and enter a judgment, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought.

Appellant Eugene Pitts was convicted of capital murder and kidnapping. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging his actual innocence and requesting relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201. The circuit court found Appellant was entitled to the DNA testing of a hair recovered from the victim's clothing and ordered the state crime laboratory to conduct the testing. After the test results came back inconclusive, the hair fragment was lost. Appellant then filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to section 16-112-201, alleging actual innocence and citing his inability to have further testing on the missing hair fragment. The circuit court found all available relief to Appellant under the statute had been granted and that Appellant was entitled to no further relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's constitutional arguments were not preserved for appeal, and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in denying additional DNA testing.

Appellant Eric Murry pled guilty to charges of theft by receiving, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, for which he received a ten-year suspended sentence on each count and was ordered to pay $500 in court costs. After Appellant failed to pay court costs, failed to notify the sheriff of his address and employment, and was charged with further crimes, the circuit court revoked Appellant's suspended imposition of sentence and sentenced him to 360 months' incarceration. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied after finding the petition was over-length. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing a petition that failed to adhere to the page limit dictated in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.

Appellant Keith Miller entered a plea of guilty to theft by receiving and robbery. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, seeking to withdraw the plea of guilty. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the petition was untimely filed. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court granted Appellee State's motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that the petition was not timely filed, and as such, the trial court, and also the appellate court, were without jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant Charles Marshall was found guilty of first-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed in the circuit court of the county where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him and that the manner in which the judgment in his case was obtained was a violation of due process of law. The circuit court denied his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court was without jurisdiction in this case, and (2) Appellant's claims of constitutional violations were factual issues that should have been addressed during trial or through a direct appeal.

Appellant Bernard Marks was convicted of capital murder, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition and an amended petition for postconviction relief, contending that his trial counsel was ineffective for successfully opposing the prosecution's request for the jury to be instructed on lesser-included offenses. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing, ruling that counsel's decision to forgo lesser-included-offense instructions was a matter of trial strategy and, thus, was not a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by failing to conduct a hearing on Appellant's petition for postconviction relief as Appellant's allegation of ineffectiveness was without merit; and (2) because the record and petition conclusively showed that Appellant's claim was without merit, any deficiency in the circuit court's findings of fact would not cause the Court to remand for further findings to be made.

Following his conviction on two counts of manslaughter and one count of first-degree battery, Appellant Eric Hoyle filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in (1) determining that Appellant failed to support his claim that there was attorney error in dealing with the plea negotiations; (2) determining that counsel's decision not to object to certain hearsay was tactical and based on reasonable professional judgment; (3) finding Appellant's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to an amendment of the information; (4) finding that counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment in deciding not to object to evidence of prior bad acts; and (5) finding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a reduction in sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-107 when the motion would have been denied.