Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and sexual assault in the second degree. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent sentences of 120 months’ imprisonment for rape and 180 months’ imprisonment for second-degree sexual assault. Imposition of an additional 180 months’ imprisonment for second-degree sexual assault was suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing in part, holding (1) Appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and trial error claims were not cognizable in the error-coram-nobis proceedings; but (2) the suspended imposition of an additional 180-month sentence for sexual assault caused the ultimate sentence to exceed the statutory range allowed for the offense, rendering it illegal on its face. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

In two separate proceedings, Appellant was convicted of a number of drug-related charges. No appeal was taken from the judgments. Appellant later filed a petition in the trial court challenging the two judgments and filed a motion seeking to receive certain documents in the proceedings. The petition was couched in terms of extraordinary relief, but Appellant sought postconviction relief from his convictions. The trial court denied the motion and petition on the basis that Appellant should pursue his remedy in the Supreme Court. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and filed two motions in relation to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that the petition Appellant filed was not a petition on which the trial court could grant relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. View "Nickels v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) failing to grant Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, as the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement Defendant made to police while he was in custody; (3) failing to grant a mistrial due to the State’s allegedly improper remarks during closing, as the unobjected-to statement was not prejudicial; and (4) giving a nonmodel jury instruction. View "Conway v. State" on Justia Law

In 2011, judgment was entered reflecting that Petitioner had entered a plea of guilty to two counts of forgery. In 2015, Petitioner tendered to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the 2011 judgment with his pro se motion for leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the judgment because it was not timely tendered to the Court and because the judgment was entered on a plea of guilty and Petitioner’s plea did not meet any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal from the judgment. View "Wright v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder, with residential burglary as the underlying felony, and theft of property. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole for capital murder and twenty years in prison for theft of property. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. The circuit court denied relief on the grounds that Appellant failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and made his claims for the sole purpose of retrying his case. Now before the Supreme Court were Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief and petition for writ of mandamus, which the Court treated as a motion to expedite. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Hinkston v. State" on Justia Law

When he was fifteen years old, Z.L. was charged as an adult of rape. An Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) adjudication order was entered, and Z.L. was committed to the Arkansas Division of Youth Services (DYS). When Z.L. was twenty-one, DYS released him, and Z.L.’s case was set for a hearing in the circuit court to consider imposition of an adult sentence. After a hearing, the circuit court entered an order in the juvenile division finding that Z.L.’s case should be transferred to the criminal division. A second juvenile order was subsequently entered finding that an adult sentence was appropriate. Z.L. was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Z.L. appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to impose an adult sentence because he had reached the age of twenty-one before the EJJ review hearing was scheduled and conducted and before the sentencing order was entered. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed and dismissed the case, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to conduct an EJJ review hearing and impose an adult sentence on Z.L. View "Z.L. v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that defense counsel was ineffective on seven separate grounds. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to assert that but for any alleged ineffectiveness on the part of counsel he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 360 months in prison. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from custody, contending that the trial court made a number of errors pertaining to whether evidence was admissible and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that Appellant did not establish a ground in his petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for the writ. View "Tucker v. State" on Justia Law

In 1990, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1993, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.4. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. Appellant appealed, arguing that the petition was timely because he was entitled to the three-year limitations period under the former version of Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant could not proceed under either remedy in a timely manner. In 2015, Appellant filed a “motion for a new trial or reduction of sentence under a belated Rule 36.4 motion for a new trial,” again arguing that he was entitled to proceed for postconviction relief under Rule 36.4. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appelalnt did not show in his 2015 motion that there was a ground to permit a belated Rule 36.4 petition to be filed. View "Ray v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, sixth offense. Appellant appealed, arguing that his conviction violated the ex post facto clauses of the Arkansas Constitution and United States Constitution. This appeal presented an issue of first impression whether an appeal was allowed from Appellant’s conditional plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal; and (2) as to the merits, Appellant’s conviction does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. View "Laymon v. State" on Justia Law