Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder as an accomplice and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. Appellant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in denying postconviction relief because he would have accepted the State’s plea offer had his counsel disclosed the evidence against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of his trial counsel. View "Camp v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of rape pursuant to a plea agreement. Appellant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, the minimum sentence he could have received, plus a suspended imposition of sentence of fifteen years. Appellant filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 alleging that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance by advising him that he would be eligible for parole in five years and would serve no more than eight years and that he would have refused to plead guilty had he known he would be required to serve at least seventy percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that Appellant had been correctly advised about his eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Appellant did not receive incorrect advice regarding his eligibility for parole. View "Riddle v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to a charge of aggravated residential burglary and negotiated pleas of guilty to aggravated assault and felon in possession of a firearm. The circuit court accepted the pleas. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter the pleas and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in accepting the negotiated pleas. The circuit court rejected Appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) finding that Appellant voluntarily and knowingly entered pleas of no contest and guilty; and (2) concluding that Appellant received effective assistance of counsel. View "Young v. State" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) amended its licensing requirements to include certain minimum general-liability-insurance coverage for all child-care centers. Plaintiffs, three school districts that operated child-care centers licensed by DHS, filed a complaint alleging that DHS’s requirement that they purchase general-liability-insurance conflicted with their tort immunity under Ark. Code. 21-9-301(a). Defendants, DHS and John Selig, the director of DHS, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the school districts’ claims were barred by sovereign and statutory immunity. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds as to DHS and John Selig, in his official capacity; (2) to the extent the school district made claims against Selig individually, they were barred by Ark. Code Ann. 19-10-305(a); and (3) the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments were not properly before the Court. View "Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Fort Smith Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

When the Arkansas State Medical Board declined the application of Plaintiff, a breast oncology surgeon, for a permit to dispense legend drugs, Plaintiff sued, arguing that Act 515 of 1983, codified at Ark. Code Ann. 17-95-102, was unconstitutional. The circuit court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that section 17-95-102(d) was unconstitutional. The General Assembly subsequently amended the statutory provision the circuit court had declared unconstitutional by passing Act 1169 of 2013. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other physicians similarly situated, and another individual filed a complaint alleging that Act 1169 was unconstitutional as special legislation, among other things. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) res judicata was not applicable to this case; (2) Appellants’ argument that a statute that was declared unconstitutional and void cannot be amended was without merit; (3) Appellants failed to show that Act 1169 was impermissibly vague in all of its applications; (4) Appellants failed to establish that the Board was prevented from issuing permits upon approval as a mechanism for exercising its authority to carry out Act 1169; and (5) Act 1169 does not constitute unconstitutional special legislation. View "Abraham v. Beck" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property. Defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that the police seized after entering his motel room using a key card. The officers entered the motel room to serve an arrest warrant based on an anonymous tip. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in admitting the evidence seized incident to Defendant’s arrest, as the uncorroborated tip, standing alone, did not provide sufficient detail for a reasonable belief that the motel room was Defendant’s room or that Defendant was present; but (2) the error in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Evans v. State" on Justia Law

In 1983, Appellant pled guilty to ten counts of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery. For one of the aggravated-robbery convictions, Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Graham v. Florida that a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile nonhomicide offense was unconstitutional. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his sentence of life imprisonment for aggravated robbery was illegal. After a hearing, the circuit court granted writ of habeas corpus and reduced Appellant’s life sentence to a sentence of forty years. Appellant appealed, arguing that a person resentenced under Graham is entitled to a plenary resentencing hearing. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in Hobbs v. Turner. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the circuit court and declined to overrule or modify its decision in Turner, as Appellant failed to give any compelling reason to do so. View "Proctor v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of theft of property and two counts of aggravated robbery for robbing a bank. At trial, Appellant argued that he was involuntarily intoxicated at the time of the robbery due to the combination of prescription medications he was taking. Appellant sought postconviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to subpoena certain prescription records from the pharmacy, failed to subpoena a pharmacy employee who could authenticate the records, and did not request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery, resulting in Appellant’s conviction of the greater offense of aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not prejudiced by his attorneys’ failure to procure the records or testimony regarding the prescription records; and (2) Appellant’s second argument was not preserved for appeal. View "Feuget v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to one count of theft of property-credit/debit card or account number and two counts of misdemeanor fraudulent use of a credit card. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court held that it must affirm on appeal where it was unable to determine whether the trial court’s findings were sufficient concerning Appellant’s claims because the record the record was insufficient concerning all of Appellant’s points on appeal. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the writ should issue on the ground that he would not have entered a plea of guilty in his criminal case if his attorney had correctly advised him on his eligibility for parole. The claim, however, did not call into question the trial court’s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the judgment. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motion filed in connection with the appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis upon which the writ could issue. View "Sims v. State" on Justia Law