Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus or certiorari, arguing that the circuit court judge erred in entering an order that denied Petitioner’s pro se petitions for postconviction relief and erred in entering an order that denied his motion to modify or vacate the previous order. Petitioner asked that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari directing that a hearing be held on the pleadings, counsel be appointed by the circuit judge, Appellant be granted leave to proceed as an indigent, proper findings of fact and conclusions of law be made by the judge on the pleadings, and a ruling be made on the motion to modify or vacate the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus action and held that there was no ground for a writ of certiorari, as the circuit judge had already acted on the pleadings filed by Petitioner, and the request for mandamus or certiorari was not a substitute for an appeal. View "Risher v. Singleton" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant pleaded guilty to forty counts of rape, twenty counts of possession of child pornography, and one count of failure to appear. In 2015, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging more than one hundred paragraphs of grounds supporting issuance of the writ. The circuit court denied Appellant’s petition on the ground that Appellant made no allegation that his judgment and commitment was invalid on its face or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Appellant did not allege grounds in his petition on which the writ could be granted. View "Poland v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that counsel was not ineffective by identifying specific acts or omissions of trial counsel, which, when viewed from counsel’s perspective at the time of the trial, could have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. View "Nunn v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. For his sole point on appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a search warrant that resulted in the search of the contents of his cell phone. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the facts of this case, there was adequate probable cause to issue the search warrant of Appellant’s cell phone records and that the resulting search was proper. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

In 2013, Petitioner filed a motion in the circuit court in three cases seeking to have the court compel the circuit clerk to file documents Petitioner had tendered in the proceedings. The motion apparently challenged Petitioner’s incarceration on those charges. The court denied the motion on the basis that the cases had been nolle proceed. Petitioner filed three notices of appeal. The Supreme Court declined to lodge the record not he basis that none of the notices of appeal were timely. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner could not prevail on appeal. View "Hood v. State" on Justia Law

In 2010, Appellant, Duane Gonder, entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and furnishing prohibited articles. In 2014, Peggy Gonder, Appellant’s mother, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in Appellant’s criminal case, arguing that the State had violated Act 1262 of 1997 in her son’s case by not advising her of her rights and by not hearing her “victim-impact statement.” The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that communication had existed between Peggy Gonder and the State and because mandamus would not lie to grant the relief sought. The trial court placed both Appellant’s and his mother’s names on the order as parties to the mandamus petition, and Appellant alone filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that, even if Appellant were considered a party to the mandamus action, the trial court was correct that mandamus as a remedy would not lie to grant the relief sought in the petition. View "Gonder v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Petitioner contended that the State violated Brady v. Maryland during his criminal trial. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the claims raised by Petitioner were not violations of Brady but, rather, challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial, which are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to first-degree battery and first-degree criminal mischief and was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 300 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel, the trial court made errors in the guilty-plea proceeding, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court erred in its pretrial determination of competence. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claims were either not within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding or were without merit. View "Swift v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 2000, Appellant was found guilty of rape, third-degree battery, first-degree terroristic threatening, and residential burglary. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape conviction. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, alleging that he was sentenced to an invalid sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on the habeas-corpus petition; and (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentence was illegal. View "Sansevero v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and a firearm enhancement. Appellant was sentenced to a total of sixty-five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant challenged the circuit court’s decision to exclude expert-witness testimony concerning Appellant’s lack of capacity to form intent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in excluding the testimony regarding whether Appellant had the capacity to form the culpable mental state to commit first-degree murder; and (2) Appellant’s argument that the circuit court denied him due process by depriving him of his only defense was not preserved for appellate review. View "Edwards v. State" on Justia Law