Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of several counts of breaking or entering and theft of property and sentenced to 480 months' incarceration. After the judgment was affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, raising a number of claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and due-process violations. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Appellant had failed to present proof to support each of his claims. Appellant appealed and then filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file his brief and five other motions, all of which indicated an intention to supplement the record. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part, denied in part, and declared moot in part Appellant's motions to supplement; (2) declared moot Appellant's motion for extension of time; and (3) dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's findings in its order denying postconviction relief were not clearly erroneous, and Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted a proposal to the City of Pine Bluff Planning Commission requesting a Use Permitted on Review permit to utilize certain premises in Pine Bluff as a foster-care facility for displaced children. The Planning Commission and City Council denied Appellant's request. On appeal, the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that, although Pine Bluff City Ordinance 29-37 conferred standing on Appellant to bring the action, the ordinance was in conflict with Ark. R. Civ. P. 17, which requires that an action be brought by the real party in interest, and Rule 17 overrode the ordinance. Consequently, the circuit court ruled that, because Appellant was not the real party in interest, she lacked standing to bring suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the record did not contain the ordinance, the record was inadequate for review. View "Coleman v. City of Pine Bluff" on Justia Law

Appellant filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Appellant indicated in the heading to the petition that the petition encompassed six cases, and Appellant further indicated that he had entered pleas of guilty to felony offenses in the six cases. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the record on appeal was clearly deficient because it contained only one judgment, and therefore, the record was not sufficient to determine if the issues for reversal were well founded or if the petition was timely filed as to every judgment. View "Townsend v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of Michael Fox, who suffered three stab wounds. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's directed-verdict motion, as substantial evidence supported the verdict; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to a police officer; (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (4) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions to exclude prior bad acts involving Defendant's use of a knife; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude a plaster cast of the knife impression found in a seized knife box. View "Stevenson v. State" on Justia Law

The State appealed from a circuit court order dismissing its in rem forfeiture petition against real property located in Little Rock. The circuit court dismissed the petition based upon a finding that Ark. Code Ann. 5-42-204(c)(3) does not permit the State to pursue in rem forfeiture. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot because a settlement had been reached, and neither of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. Because the Court does not issue advisory opinions, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "State v. First Serv. Bank of Greenbrier" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court where he was incarcerated. The circuit court dismissed the petition on May 31, 2012, and Petitioner sought reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration was denied on July 31, 2012. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal from either order and sought leave in this motion to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion to proceed with the appeal, holding that it was the duty of Petition to file a timely notice of appeal, and he did not establish good cause for his failure to do so. View "McDaniel v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Appellant's sentence was enhanced for committing the crimes within 1000 feet of a park. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging (1) trial counsel had been ineffective, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motions for continuance and for appointment of new counsel, (3) he was entitled to more jail-time credit than he was given in the judgment-and-commitment order, and (4) his sentence was illegal. The circuit court denied Appellant's first, second, and fourth claims but left open the third claim pending the court's determination of how much jail-time credit Appellant was due. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motion Appellant filed related to the appeal moot, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment and that Appellant could not prevail if his appeal were allowed to proceed. View "Lewis v.State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, misdemeanor theft of property, and felony theft of property. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, asking that the videotape that showed the robbery of a gas station, which was one of the robberies of which Appellant was convicted, should be "tested." Appellant's petition was denied. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motion Appellant filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant could not prevail if his appeal were allowed to proceed, as Appellant's petition was little more than a bare allegation of innocence with no showing that there was good cause to order further scientific testing of evidence. View "Hutcherson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape and first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years' imprisonment, respectively. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court granted Defendant a new trial based on one ground of ineffective assistance as to the rape conviction and two grounds of ineffective assistance as to the sexual-abuse conviction. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that, based on the standard of review under Strickland v. Washington, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in its rulings on both of Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged by felony information filed in March 2011 with the December 2001 rape of his then-thirteen-year-old stepdaughter. At the time of the alleged rape, the statute of limitations provided that a prosecution for rape must be commenced within six years of the commission of the rape. However, a savings provision in effect at the time extended the statute of limitations for an unreported rape for up to six years beyond the victim's eighteenth birthday. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the rape charge for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the victim's teacher called the Child Abuse Hotline in 2005 to report the sexual abuse but that there was no proof that the Hotline had referred the call to any law enforcement agency, which allowed application of the savings statute. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for an extraordinary writ prohibiting the circuit court from trying him for rape because the statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court denied the writ, concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate he was clearly entitled to an extraordinary writ in this case. View "Morris v. Weaver" on Justia Law