Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, appellant Roy Russell was found guilty by a jury of second-degree battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve 180 months’ imprisonment and 480 months’ imprisonment, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total of 660 months. The circuit court entered the sentencing order and stated each offense and sentence. The order also stated that the aggregate term of imprisonment to be served by Russell was 480 months, rather than the 660 months. A few weeks later, the circuit court entered an amended sentencing order that stated that a total sentence of 660 months’ imprisonment had been imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. In 2016, Russell, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was being illegally held on an invalid conviction. Russell alleged that his 2013 sentencing order was invalid on its face and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The circuit court denied Russell’s petition on the ground that Russell had not stated a ground for the writ. Russell appealed, contending the circuit court erred in denying his requested relief. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Russell v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Appellant Shawn Whiteside was an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Whiteside filed a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Arkansas Parole Board (Parole Board). Whiteside alleged that the Parole Board considered him for parole and made a final decision declining to grant a transfer to the Department of Community Correction (DCC). He attached a copy of a document in support of that claim, a “Record of Release Consideration,” reflecting a hearing on May 24, 2015, and the denial of a request for reconsideration. Whiteside alleged deprivation of a conditional liberty interest in that the controlling statutes did not allow the ADC discretion in deferring a transfer for the offenses for which he was incarcerated. The circuit court dismissed the petition and counted it as a “strike” under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607 (Repl. 2005). The court found that Whiteside failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted in that Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-15-212(a) did not allow actions by persons incarcerated in the ADC and Whiteside had failed to demonstrate the requisite liberty interest in order to raise a due-process exception. Whiteside appealed the order, contending he indeed established a liberty interest to support his claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court has "repeatedly held that there is no liberty interest in parole in Arkansas." State statutes may create liberty interests that are entitled to the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause, but not every statute creates a liberty interest for due-process purposes. The Supreme Court found that even if Whiteside were correct in his claim that those inmates who meet the statute’s criteria have a statutorily created liberty interest in transfer or parole, he did not state facts to demonstrate that he has satisfied the statute’s criteria to be qualified for a mandatory transfer. Therefore, the Court affirmed dismissal of Whiteside's petition. View "Whiteside v. Ark. Parole Bd" on Justia Law

Dion Robinson was charged by information with committing four counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of felony theft of property, and one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Robinson was incarcerated following a guilty plea, and the circuit court sentenced Robinson to a twenty-year sentence. All of the sentences were set to run concurrently. Robinson appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the circuit court erred in not granting a hearing on his petition. Finding no error in the circuit court’s summary denial of Robinson’s petition, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Appellant Edward Reynolds appealed after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping and aggravated assault. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and fifteen years’ imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Reynolds contended that the circuit court erred by: (1) denying his directed-verdict motions on both charges; (2) allowing the victim to testify about her injuries despite the prosecutor’s failure to provide her medical records in discovery; and (3) overruling his objection to remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Reynolds v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

In 1994, Petitioner was convicted of the rape of a boy and sentenced to thirty years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed. In 2016, Petitioner filed a petition seeking reinvestment of jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case. Petitioner also filed a motion asking that the petition be granted. The Supreme Court denied the petition and the motion, holding (1) with the exception of the allegations that could possibly be construed as claims that certain material was omitted from the trial record by the State, Petitioner failed to state a ground under which a writ of error coram nobis could issue; and (2) as to Petitioner’s allegations that material was omitted from the trial court, there was no ground for the writ. View "Ashby v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape. Petitioner was sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s fourth pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Petitioner raised allegations not raised in the first three petitions, including claims that his judgment of conviction was illegally rendered because of an invalid arrest warrant and an insufficient information. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner’s allegations were not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding and were otherwise without merit. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a request for documents related to his criminal case under the Freedom of Information Act. Appellee, the custodian of records for the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, denied the request on the grounds that Appellant was an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Thereafter, Appellant sought a hearing before the circuit court and filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The circuit court initially granted the petition but later revoked Appellant’s pauper status and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that three federal lawsuits should be counted as strikes under Ark. Code Ann. 16-68-607. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in counting as strikes cases Appellant filed in federal district court. Remanded. View "Hill v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of firearms by certain persons. Petitioner later filed a timely pro se petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 seeking to challenge the judgment. The trial court denied the petition after a hearing. When the record on appeal was tendered to the Supreme Court, the clerk declined to lodge it because it was not received within the required time. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for rule on clerk seeking permission to proceed with the appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he filed a motion for extension of time within the requisite period of time and failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to comply with the rules of procedure. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree battery and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court ultimately concluded that Appellant’s claims were not supported by the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not clearly err when it denied Appellant’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree battery and second-degree battery and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 264 months’ imprisonment. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s second pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and Petitioner’s motion for permission to file a response to the State’s response. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declared the motion moot, holding that Petitioner did not establish a basis for issuance of the writ in his first coram-nobis petition, and his reassertion of essentially the same claims in the instant petition was a misuse of the remedy. View "Moten v. State" on Justia Law