Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with rape and possession of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress ten pornographic images of children discovered during a search of his home pursuant to search warrants. The circuit court suppressed the evidence, finding that the absence of time references to when the alleged criminal conduct occurred in the affidavits supporting the application for the warrants made the warrants invalid. The State filed this interlocutory appeal, arguing that “the time of the inculpatory information is not an essential element of probable cause” and that the evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that this was not a proper State appeal. View "State v. Sprenger" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor domestic battering in the third degree and three counts of felony terroristic threatening in the first degree. Appellant was placed on probation and ordered to serve 120 days in confinement. Thereafter, Appellant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation. Two years later, Appellant again pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation. At issue during sentencing was whether Appellant was entitled to jail-time credit for the time he previously served in confinement when he was first placed on probation. The circuit court ultimately awarded Petitioner thirty-one days’ jail-time credit to account for the time he spent incarcerated between his arrest and the final hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to jail-time credit under either Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-404 or Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-309(c). View "Burgess v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery, residential burglary, and third-degree battery and sentenced to an aggregate term of 540 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner later filed the instant motion seeking at public expense a copy of the transcript lodged on direct appeal, stating that he was preparing a petition for writ of habeas corpus to be filed in federal court. Petitioner appended an affidavit of indigency to the motion. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a compelling need for a copy of the transcript from the direct appeal. View "Bowerman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a timely postconviction petition alleging that the trial court was biased and that his two attorneys failed effectively to represent him. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Strickland v. Washington, Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his attorneys’ performance; and (2) the trial court did not err when it denied Appellant’s claim for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Stover v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder ad sentenced to death. The jury sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying an instruction on the extreme-emotional-disturbance formulation of manslaughter, as there was no rational basis to warrant an instruction of manslaughter; (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Appellant access to certain Arkansas Department of Correction records, as Appellant failed to meet the requirements of Ark. R. Crim. P. 17.4; and (3) no reversible error was determined to exist under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(i) or Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 10(b). View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was found guilty of internet stalking of a child and sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. After the court of appeals’ mandate was issued, Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The original petition was not properly verified. The trial court nonetheless held a hearing on the petition and denied it. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal without reaching its merits on the grounds that the petition filed in the trial court was subject to dismissal because Appellant did not comply with Rule 37.1(c) because he failed to file a properly verified petition within the time allowed by the Rule. View "Hendrix v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed an application for in-forma-pauperis status. Because the circuit court denied Appellant’s in-forma-pauperis petition, the circuit court would not file mark the relevant pleadings until Appellant paid the assessed fees. Instead of paying the fees, Appellant appealed. The clerk of the Supreme Court rejected the record tendered on appeal because it lacked a file-marked copy of the order denying Appellant’s application for in-forma-pauperis status. Appellant then filed a motion for rule on clerk. The Supreme Court granted Appellant’s motion for rule on clerk and remanded the record with directions for the circuit court to submit all relevant pleadings properly file marked and certified by the circuit clerk. When the circuit court returned the record to the Supreme Court, the relevant documents were stamped “received” rather than “filed.” The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the circuit clerk should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s unambiguous direction to provide a record that was file marked in accordance with Administrative Order 2(b)(2). View "Halfacre v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to object to testimony that allegedly bolstered the victim’s credibility. The circuit court denied Defendant’s claim, concluding that defense counsel’s failure to object was based on trial strategy and that his performance was not deficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that counsel’s failure to object was based on trial strategy. View "Fukunaga v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se application for writ of certiorari arguing, inter alia, that his sentence was illegal because he was found guilty of capital murder with aggravated robbery as the underlying felony, and aggravated robbery did not specifically appear as a lesser-included offense to capital murder in the capital-murder statute at the time he committed the offenses. The trial court denied Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to relief for the writ of certiorari to issue. View "Burgie v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of arson. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to 144 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case and that the judgment was invalid on its face because the judgment-and-commitment order was signed by a different judge than the judge who presided over his trial and did not appear in the official record for the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither Ark. Code Ann. 16-10-101(b)(1) nor Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 16(1) invalidated the judgment-and-commitment order and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case. View "Booth v. Kelley" on Justia Law