Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Shawn Whiteside was an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Whiteside filed a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Arkansas Parole Board (Parole Board). Whiteside alleged that the Parole Board considered him for parole and made a final decision declining to grant a transfer to the Department of Community Correction (DCC). He attached a copy of a document in support of that claim, a “Record of Release Consideration,” reflecting a hearing on May 24, 2015, and the denial of a request for reconsideration. Whiteside alleged deprivation of a conditional liberty interest in that the controlling statutes did not allow the ADC discretion in deferring a transfer for the offenses for which he was incarcerated. The circuit court dismissed the petition and counted it as a “strike” under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607 (Repl. 2005). The court found that Whiteside failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted in that Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-15-212(a) did not allow actions by persons incarcerated in the ADC and Whiteside had failed to demonstrate the requisite liberty interest in order to raise a due-process exception. Whiteside appealed the order, contending he indeed established a liberty interest to support his claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court has "repeatedly held that there is no liberty interest in parole in Arkansas." State statutes may create liberty interests that are entitled to the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause, but not every statute creates a liberty interest for due-process purposes. The Supreme Court found that even if Whiteside were correct in his claim that those inmates who meet the statute’s criteria have a statutorily created liberty interest in transfer or parole, he did not state facts to demonstrate that he has satisfied the statute’s criteria to be qualified for a mandatory transfer. Therefore, the Court affirmed dismissal of Whiteside's petition. View "Whiteside v. Ark. Parole Bd" on Justia Law

Dion Robinson was charged by information with committing four counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of felony theft of property, and one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Robinson was incarcerated following a guilty plea, and the circuit court sentenced Robinson to a twenty-year sentence. All of the sentences were set to run concurrently. Robinson appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the circuit court erred in not granting a hearing on his petition. Finding no error in the circuit court’s summary denial of Robinson’s petition, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Appellant Edward Reynolds appealed after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping and aggravated assault. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and fifteen years’ imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Reynolds contended that the circuit court erred by: (1) denying his directed-verdict motions on both charges; (2) allowing the victim to testify about her injuries despite the prosecutor’s failure to provide her medical records in discovery; and (3) overruling his objection to remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reynolds v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree battery and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court ultimately concluded that Appellant’s claims were not supported by the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not clearly err when it denied Appellant’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a timely postconviction petition alleging that the trial court was biased and that his two attorneys failed effectively to represent him. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Strickland v. Washington, Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his attorneys’ performance; and (2) the trial court did not err when it denied Appellant’s claim for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Stover v. State" on Justia Law

Corina Mendoza was a passenger in the backseat of a vehicle operated by Anthony Adams when Adams ran into the back of a parked excavator. Mendoza filed a complaint against Adams and WIS International, Inc. and Washington Inventory Services, Inc. (collectively, WIS) seeking damages for her injuries and alleging that Adams was acting in the course of his employment with WIS at the time of the accident. WIS and Adams pled the affirmative defense of comparative fault, citing Mendoza’s failure to wear a seat belt at the time of the accident. WIS and Adams then filed motions challenging the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 27-37-703, which restricts the admissibility of seat belt nonuse in civil actions. The Supreme Court accepted a request from the district court to determine the certified question of whether section 27-37-703 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that section 27-37-703 is procedural and therefore offends the principle of separation of powers under article 4, section 2 of amendment 80, section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution. View "Mendoza v. WIS Int’l, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to object to testimony that allegedly bolstered the victim’s credibility. The circuit court denied Defendant’s claim, concluding that defense counsel’s failure to object was based on trial strategy and that his performance was not deficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that counsel’s failure to object was based on trial strategy. View "Fukunaga v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of rape. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life, fifty years, and fifty years. Appellant appealed, contending that the trial court committed a speedy trial violation and did not follow the strict dictates of Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3(b)(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s trial date was well within the one-year period for a speedy trial, as the State met its burden to prove that any delay was excludable for speedy-trial purposes, and therefore, there was no speedy-trial violation in this case. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three Arkansas corporations that operate private hospitals in the state, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a judgment declaring the Arkansas Peer Review Fairness Act unconstitutional. The circuit court ruled that the Act is not unconstitutional. Defendants - the Attorney General, the Arkansas Department of Health, and Nathaniel Smith - appealed, arguing that there was no actual, present controversy in this case because there was no present danger or dilemma. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that this was not a proper declaratory judgment action because the necessary element of a justiciable controversy was lacking in this case. View "Baptist Health Sys. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated residential burglary, and other offenses. Appellant was sentenced to fifty-two years’ imprisonment, which included a firearm enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The circuit court denied relief without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue and actual-innocence defense where Appellant’s counsel actually pursued an actual-innocence defense at trial; (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice due to trial counsel’s failure to move for a change of venue; (3) Appellant’s sentence for employing a firearm in the commission of an offense was not void as the result of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) considering the totality of the evidence, the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing. View "Van Winkle v. State" on Justia Law