Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty-five years. Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Defendant contended that his trial counsel erroneously informed him regarding his parole eligibility under a plea offer, and, as a result, he rejected the plea offer and went to trial, where he received a less favorable outcome. The circuit court denied Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Remanded. View "Beavers v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Rolandis Chatmon was in jail at the time of his applications to the Arkansas Supreme Court for a writ of coram nobis. He was incarcerated on three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, with a firearm enhancement, to a term of three life sentences plus 360 months’ imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a second pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and alternatively, for a writ of certiorari. Attached to the petition were: a letter of suspension and removal from office issued to Judge Michael Maggio, the trial judge in his aggravated robbery trial; a document reflecting that Chatmon’s case was transferred to Maggio’s court; Chatmon’s pro se motion for appointment of counsel filed in October 2012; and a letter from the Arkansas Public Defender Commission sent to Chatmon addressing complaints about his trial counsel. Chatmon contended that these documents, plus alleged comments the judge made with regard to Chatmon, reflected the trial judge's bias toward criminal defendants. Chatmon further asserted that this bias was the source of Maggio’s refusal to grant a request for a continuance so that a material witness and others could have been called. The Supreme Court had held previously that it would not exercise its discretion to permit a successive application for a writ of error coram nobis if the petitioner was abusing the writ by alleging the same grounds without additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ. Furthermore, the Court found that with regard to certiorari relief, Chatmon failed to demonstrate that there was no other remedy to redress his contentions that he was unfairly denied a continuance and the appointment of other counsel. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of coram nobis and alternatively for a writ of certiorari was denied. View "Chatmon v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Appellant Bruce Allen Echols was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to four concurrent terms of 360 months’ imprisonment. Echols filed a timely verified petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2015) and alleged that both trial counsel and appellate counsel1 were ineffective in litigating the factual and legal issues surrounding Echols’s arrest and the subsequent search of his residence. On September 24, 2015, the trial court entered its order summarily denying relief without a hearing. Finding that the trial court did not clearly err when it denied Echols' claims for postconviction relief, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Echols v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Randle was found guilty by jury of capital murder in the death of Ranson Harrison, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Randle appealed, and his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Randle filed a timely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2008); however, the petition was not verified. In October 2015, the trial court denied relief, and Randle appealed. The State petitioned that the appeal be dismissed, arguing that Randle’s Rule 37.1 petition was not verified, which required dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 37.1(d). The State additionally argued that Randle’s claim on appeal arose out of a pleading he filed challenging the State’s response to his Rule 37.1 petition. Because he had not sought leave to amend, Randle’s responsive pleading could not be considered an amended Rule 37.1 petition. Consequently, the State contended that appellate review of the claim was precluded because it was raised for the first time on appeal. After review, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the State’s claims regarding dismissal of Randle’s appeal. View "Randle v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

In 2013, appellant Roy Russell was found guilty by a jury of second-degree battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve 180 months’ imprisonment and 480 months’ imprisonment, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total of 660 months. The circuit court entered the sentencing order and stated each offense and sentence. The order also stated that the aggregate term of imprisonment to be served by Russell was 480 months, rather than the 660 months. A few weeks later, the circuit court entered an amended sentencing order that stated that a total sentence of 660 months’ imprisonment had been imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. In 2016, Russell, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was being illegally held on an invalid conviction. Russell alleged that his 2013 sentencing order was invalid on its face and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The circuit court denied Russell’s petition on the ground that Russell had not stated a ground for the writ. Russell appealed, contending the circuit court erred in denying his requested relief. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Russell v. Kelley" on Justia Law