Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Judgment was entered reflecting that Petitioner had entered a plea of guilty to three felony offenses. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that she was misled and deceived into accepting a plea agreement in that she was unaware of the amount of time that she would be required to serve before becoming eligible for parole. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that because Petitioner did not contend that her plea was conditional or that it otherwise met any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal, she did not meet her burden of establishing that she was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal. View "Owens v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted for criminal offenses and incarcerated. Petitioner later filed three petitions for postconviction relief, which were denied by the circuit court. Petitioner did not timely file a notice of appeal from the court's orders disposing of the petitions. Thereafter, Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that the court's orders did not reach him until six days after the orders had been entered, and because he was functionally illiterate, he was forced to rely on a "jailhouse lawyer" for legal advice and assistance. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to perfect his appeal in a timely manner. View "Neely v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted by a circuit court jury of five counts of capital murder, two counts of aggravated residential burglary, and four counts of theft of property. Appellant was sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment without parole and two additional life sentences plus ninety years. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's sentences and convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss a juror, despite the juror's informing the court he could not be fair to Appellant, and thus, Appellant was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury. View "Conway v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant operated a sexually oriented business. Three weeks after the store's opening, the City Council enacted an ordinance establishing licensing requirements and regulations for sexually oriented businesses. Once a three-year grace period for nonconforming businesses already in existence at the time of the ordinance's passage ended, Appellant applied for and received a single six-month hardship extension. After the extension expired and Appellant did not apply for another extension, the City filed this action to enjoin the continuing operation of the store. Appellant counterclaimed, alleging that the ordinance was invalid, it violated the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and it was unconstitutional. The circuit court found that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel prohibited Appellant from challenging the ordinance because it sought and was granted a hardship license and because it had received the benefit of the ordinance's amortization period. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the acceptance-of-benefits rule of estoppel did not apply in this case because the passage of the ordinance provided no benefit to the store, and Appellant's acceptance of the temporary hardship extension was not voluntary in any real sense. View "40 Retail Corp. v. City of Clarksville" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a certain person. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 360 months' imprisonment. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied and dismissed. No appeal was taken, and Petition instead sought a writ of certiorari requesting leave to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court treated the petition as a motion for belated appeal. The Court denied the appeal, holding that, under the circumstances, Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Tolefree v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property with a sentence enhancement for use of a firearm in commission of the offenses. The court of appeals affirmed. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed a verified petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the trial court's order as required by Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(a)(4). Before the Supreme Court was Petitioner's motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the court's order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations clearly fell short of establishing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial, and accordingly, there was no good cause to permit an appeal from the order that denied postconviction relief. View "Crain v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and following too close. Appellant appealed his conviction for DWI, arguing that the circuit court erred in allowing testimony regarding the administration and results of his breathalyzer test because the person who calibrated the machine was not made available to testify, which violated Appellant's Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding (1) calibration records of a breathalyzer machine are not testimonial, and thus the admission of those records without the testimony of the person who performed the calibration does not violate the Confrontation Clause; and (2) Appellant was required to subpoena the person who performed the calibration if he wished to cross-examine that person. View "Chambers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to rape in 2007 and was sentenced to 240 months' incarceration. In 2012, Appellant filed a pleading that he captioned, "Motion/Petition to Vacate and/or Modifier Plus Correct The Judgment Pursuant to Ark. Ct. Rule 60(I) and Fed. R. 60(B)(3)." The circuit court denied the motion, and Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal upon a motion by the State, as Appellant's original pleading was nothing more than an untimely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, and therefore, because the petition was untimely, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. View "Winnett v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of two counts of rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend's daughters when they were both under the age of fourteen. After the judgment was affirmed, Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief was denied. Petitioner subsequently petitioned to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and a motion for leave to file a response to the response filed by the State. The allegations in Petitioner's petition primarily pertained to his claim that the victims were not under the age of fourteen when the offenses occurred. The Supreme Court denied the writ and the motion, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the writ was warranted. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted in 2006 of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. In 2011, Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and an amended petition, alleging that the prosecutor had withheld information about certain police reports that Appellant contended exonerated him and could have been used to impeach the officer's testimony. Appellant asserted that because this information was withheld, the trial court was not presented with a sufficient factual basis on which to accept the plea and that he would not have entered the plea if he had been aware of the information. He also included a claim that he was not convicted of the charge indicated on the judgment because the trial court did not specify that the substance manufactured was methamphetamine. The trial court determined the petition was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding (1) the trial court's decision to deny the petition was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) Appellant failed to establish that his sentence was illegal. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law