Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of four counts of computer exploitation of a child in the first degree and of twenty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief. Appellant appealed and filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file brief, motion for certified copies of records, and motion to use twelve-point typeface. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant failed to establish that either trial counsel or appellate counsel was ineffective. View "Rea v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Arkansas State Police conducted a sobriety checkpoint on an exit ramp on an interstate. Appellant was stopped and subsequently arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the sobriety checkpoint was illegally conducted, requiring reversal of his convictions under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the sobriety checkpoint was unconstitutional because the State failed to demonstrate that the field officers’ discretion was properly limited; and (2) the seizure of Appellant through the checkpoint stop was unreasonable, and therefore, any evidence obtained as a result of the checkpoint should have been suppressed. View "Whalen v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and sentenced to ten years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in three ways. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, considering the totality of the evidence, Appellant did not show that counsel’s performance was deficient or that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. View "Doty v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to 480 months in prison. Appellant later filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief seeking to vacate the judgment on the ground that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, alleging six grounds for reversal of the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s finding were not clearly erroneous and that trial counsel’s assistance was not constitutionally deficient. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. The judgment imposed an aggregate sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment in the two criminal cases, in conjunction with the court’s granting a petition to revoke the suspended sentences. Appellant appealed the revocation order, but the court of appeals affirmed the judgment and granted the appellate attorney’s motion to withdraw. Appellant then filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. Appellant appealed and also filed motions seeking leave to file a belated reply brief, leave to file a supplemental abstract, and an order for polygraph examinations and to stay the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and declared the motions moot, holding that trial counsel’s assistance was not constitutionally deficient. View "Flemons v. State" on Justia Law

On July 7, 2016, the Secretary of State certified that The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act had met the constitutional signature requirements in order to place the proposed initiated act on the Arkansas general election ballot of November 8, 2016. Dr. Melanie Conway, both individually and on behalf of Arkansas Against Legalized Marijuana, brought this original action challenging the legal sufficiency of the Act’s ballot title. Arkansas for Compassionate Care 2016 successfully moved to intervene in the action in support of the Act’s ballot title. The Supreme Court denied Conway’s petition, holding that Conway did not meet her burden of proving that the ballot title was legally insufficient. View "Conway v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder, and two enhancements. Appellant was sentenced to fifty-five years’ imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and that, but for his counsel’s ineffective assistance, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that counsel performed deficiently and that absent counsel’s deficient performance he would not have entered the guilty plea. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, possession of firearms by certain persons, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the time of the entry of the guilty plea, Appellant entered a drug court admission form stating that his sentence would begin if he were to be expelled from drug court. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment for his alleged violation of the drug-court program. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that he was deprived of due process from his expulsion from the drug court program without a hearing and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court violated Appellant’s due process rights by failing to hold a hearing prior to his expulsion from the drug court program. Remanded. View "Neal v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants, current and retired members of the Arkansas judiciary, contested the forfeiture provisions found in Ark. Code Ann. 24-8-215 and 24-8-710 that pertain to the Arkansas Judicial Retirement System. Appellants alleged that they wish or wished to seek reelection but that they elected not to because they had reached the age that continued service would result in the forfeiture of their retirement benefits. As relief, Appellants sought an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutes do not violate amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution; (2) the forfeiture provisions of the statues do not offend the equal protection clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions; and (3) Appellants’ remaining arguments were without merit. View "Landers v. Stone" on Justia Law

Appellees were prisoners under sentences of death for capital murder. Appellees filed an amended complaint against the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) challenging the constitutionality of Act 1096 of 2015, which establishes the current method by which executions are to be conducted in Arkansas. The circuit court granted summary judgment in part to ADC but denied ADC summary judgment on Appellees’ substantive due-process claim and cruel-or-unusual-punishment claim, concluding that these issues could not be decided as a matter of law because material questions of fact remained in dispute. ADC appealed, arguing that Appellees failed sufficiently to plead and prove the alleged constitutional violations in order to overcome ADC’s defense of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed Appellees’ amended complaint, holding that the Act does not offend the Constitution. View "Kelley v. Johnson" on Justia Law