Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jermiko Johnson was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault in the second degree. Appellant subsequently filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming (1) he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney failed to subpoena certain witnesses, (2) there was prosecutorial misconduct at his trial, and (3) the prosecution's use of the testimony of the victim and her mother to convict him of the offense was a denial of due process and equal protection of law because the victim and her mother were mentally incompetent. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to raise any ground that entitled him to relief under the postconviction rule. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Andrew Davis entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate criminal cases in the circuit court. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360 months' imprisonment in each case to be served concurrently. After the judgment was entered, Appellant filed a pro se motion to correct a clerical mistake in the judgment-and-commitment order, contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The motion was denied. Appellant subsequent filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, again contending that the ADC had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motions filed by Appellant in relation to his appeal moot, as Appellant's ground for relief was not a ground for granting a writ of error coram nobis. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Cowan was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and sentenced as a habitual offender to 960 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel refused to allow him to testify. The circuit court denied postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant appealed, and before the Supreme Court were two motions filed by Appellant relating to the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that Appellant's argument was not cognizable in a postconviction relief petition. View "Cowan v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Joseph Chunestudy was found guilty by a jury of the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by allowing the introduction of prior and subsequent acts into evidence; (2) Appellant's arguments that the circuit court erred in denying Appellant's motion for directed verdict and by allowing the State to comment on Appellant's right to remain silent were not preserved for review; and (3) the circuit court did not err by allowing a supervisor with the state police to testify as an expert and lay witness during the guilt phase of trial. View "Chunestudy v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Wyouman Camp was convicted of first-degree murder as an accomplice and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition requesting that the Supreme Court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by falsely representing that Petitioner's accomplice would receive a life sentence, which artificially enhanced the credibility of the accomplice's testimony. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to set forth a meritorious proposed attack on the judgment as a basis for issuance of the writ. View "Camp v. State" on Justia Law

Sixteen-year-old C.B. was charged with the felony offenses of, inter alia, capital murder, aggravated robbery, first-degree escape, and theft of property. C.B. filed a motion to dismiss and to declare Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318 unconstitutional and a motion to transfer to juvenile court. In challenging the constitutionality of section 9-27-318, C.B. contended that the statute, among other things, violated the separation of powers doctrine by improperly vesting in the local prosecuting attorney power to determine which court has initial jurisdiction over certain classes of juveniles. The circuit court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 9-27-318 was constitutional; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying C.B.'s motion to transfer. View "C.B. v. State" on Justia Law

A taxpayer class filed an illegal-exaction complaint. The case was remanded for the circuit court to ascertain a remedy consistent with the Supreme Court's decision that the taxpayers had proved a valid claim for illegal exaction of increased ad valorem library taxes for the 2007 ad valorem tax year. In this appeal, the taxpayers contended that the circuit court erred in applying the voluntary-payment rule to class members who paid the tax in question prior to the date the complaint for illegal exaction was filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that the order appealed was not a final order and did not contain specific factual findings of any danger of hardship or injustice that could be alleviated by an immediate appeal, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Robinson v. Villines" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Simon Reed was convicted of one count of assault in the third degree and one count of assault in the first degree. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se "Intent to Appeal" with the circuit clerk. However, no notice of appeal was ever filed. Appellant, by and through his attorney, subsequently filed a motion for rule on clerk. The Supreme Court treated Appellant's motion as one for belated appeal and remanded, as no good reason for failure to file a notice of appeal was cited in the motion, fault was not admitted, and the Court could not tell from the record whether there was attorney error. Remanded for findings on attorney error. View "Reed v. State" on Justia Law

Judgment was entered reflecting that Appellant Joe Jones had been found guilty of having violated the conditions of a suspended sentence imposed on him in 2002. The court of appeals affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, challenging the revocation order and arguing that his attorney was ineffective during the revocation proceedings. The trial court denied the petition. Before the Supreme Court were two motions filed by Appellant related to his appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that Appellant failed to provide facts to affirmatively establish that he was entitled to postconviction relief. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

On October 24, 2007, Napolean Johnson was charged with several drug-related offenses. On March 23, 2010, Johnson was charged with two misdemeanors and kidnapping, a felony. Johnson entered negotiated pleas of guilty in both cases and was sentenced to one year on each misdemeanor conviction and to ten years on each felony conviction. The sentences were to run concurrently for a total term of ten years. The Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) subsequently decided that Johnson would be required to serve the entirety of his ten-year sentence for kidnapping because he was ineligible for parole pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609. Johnson filed a motion to modify sentence to conform with the intent of the parties, challenging the ADC's decision to apply section 16-93-609, a parole-eligibility statute, to his sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Johnson's appeal, holding (1) Johnson's argument that the ADC should make him eligible for parole was not a recognized exception for an appeal following a guilty plea; and (2) because Johnson's sentence had been placed into execution, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant Johnson the relief request, nor did the Court. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law