Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to four felony offenses in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Appellant later entered plea of guilty in Saline County to four additional felony offenses and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 1500 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, in which he challenged the Saline County judgments. The circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a motion related to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that because Appellant failed to state cognizable claims, he did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. Therefore, Appellant could not prevail on appeal of the order denying his petition. View "Misenheimer v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and theft of property, for which a cumulative sentence of sixty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) was imposed. Later, the circuit court granted the State's petition seeking reimbursement from Petitioner's inmate account of a portion of the cost of housing Petitioner in the ADC, ordering that $5015 in Petitioner's inmate account be deposited into the state treasury. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for rehearing. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate any errors of fact or law contained in this Court's opinion, and therefore, he was not entitled to a rehearing. View "MacKool v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant then filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to the APA, seeking to have the circuit court alter the determination of his parole-eligibility date and seeking a declaratory judgment that the application of certain sentencing statutes to Appellant's sentence was illegal. The circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion related to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant's petition for judicial review was untimely, and he was precluded from seeking relief under the APA. View "Lee v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Records Dep't" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate criminal cases, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360 months' imprisonment in each case. Petitioner subsequently filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Petitioner subsequently tendered an untimely motion for reconsideration, which was returned to him. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for leave to file his motion for reconsideration belatedly. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that Petitioner asserted no provision or rule that would allow him to file a belated motion for reconsideration. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner brought an original action seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State to accept its petitions for an initiated constitutional amendment to be placed on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Petitioner sought the writ of mandamus against the Secretary, requiring him to accept Petitioner's petition as timely filed containing, prima facie, the required number of signatures for an initiated constitutional amendment, and further ordering the Secretary to permit Petitioner thirty days to cure any shortcomings in its petition. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition, holding (1) Petitioner had standing to invoke the Court's jurisdiction; but (2) Petitioner failed to submit a facially valid petition and did not qualify for the additional thirty days to cure deficiencies. View "Ark. Hotels & Entm't Inc. v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant was a prisoner in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Appellant filed a petition in the circuit court that sought a declaratory judgment, contending that the ADC had erroneously applied Act 1805 of 2001 so as to make Appellant ineligible for parole. The petition additionally sought a writ of mandamus directing the ADC to correct the parole calculation. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, presenting two arguments based on due-process violations and ex-post-facto-clause violations. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motions Appellant filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding that the both arguments raised by Appellant on appeal were unavailing. View "Stephens v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

On September 2, 2011, the circuit court entered an order denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner was represented in the proceeding by his retained attorney, Ronald Davis. No appeal was taken from that order, and Petitioner subsequently sought to proceed with a belated appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(e). Petitioner contended that he instructed Davis on the day the order was entered to perfect an appeal from the order and paid him to do so. Davis, however, claimed that he was not informed by Petitioner within the time period allowed for filing a notice of appeal that Petitioner desired to appeal from the order denying postconviction relief. Because the claims in Petitioner's motion were in conflict with the assertions made by Davis, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Davis was timely informed by Petitioner that Petitioner desired to appeal the order denying postconviction relief. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The court of appeals affirmed a judgment reflecting Petitioner's conviction and sentence on a charge of first-degree domestic battering. Petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis concerning that conviction, and that petition was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a second petition in the Court requesting the Court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court in order that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, raising the same claims in his new petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that because Petitioner's subsequent petition did not allege new grounds or additional facts to cure the deficiencies in the previous petition, Petitioner's petition was an abuse of the writ and did not support renewal of the application. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and an application for writ of prohibition, both of which referenced two criminal cases filed against him in the circuit court. The petition sought to have the Court compel Respondent, the circuit judge, to act on multiple pleadings filed in the two cases. The application for writ of prohibition sought to compel dismissal of one of the two cases on allegations of a speedy-trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) denied in part the petition for mandamus, as the record did not contain the motions Petitioner contended remained outstanding, and requested an amended response in part; and (2) denied the application for writ of prohibition, as Petitioner did not bring an adequate record to support his claim that he filed a motion to dismiss. View "Glaze v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees, the public school district, members of the district's board of directors, and others, alleging (1) subsequent to the federal decennial census, the district was required to adopt new district lines and the district had failed to do so in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-631; and (2) the voters were entitled to a new school board pursuant to section 6-13-631. The circuit court found in favor of Appellants. Appellants subsequently filed a motion for payment of prevailing-party attorneys' fees, which was denied. Appellants appealed, arguing that the circuit court' findings were equivalent to a finding that there had been a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and that, because the circuit court could have awarded attorneys' fees pursuant to the Act, Appellants were entitled to attorneys fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not prevail on anything other than the claim made pursuant to section 6-13-631, and because that statute does not provide for an award of attorneys' fees, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the same. View "Fluker v. Helena-West Helena Pub. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law