Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted for the rape of his minor stepdaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the petition. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court summarily denied the petition. After Appellant appealed, the State alleged that the petition had not been properly verified, and the Supreme Court remanded the matter for findings of fact. After a second remand, the trial court found that the verification appearing on the petition was in substantial compliance with the rule. The Supreme Court reversed the summary disposition of the petition, holding that the circuit court’s original order denying Rule 37 relief lacked the requisite findings. Remanded. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case, alleging that the State withheld evidence from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied relief, concluding that Petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in bringing his coram-nobis allegations. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which Petitioner asserted that a witness who testified for the State gave testimony that was false and misleading and that his due process rights were denied by his being convicted on the false testimony. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to state a ground to issue a writ of error coram nobis. View "Pinder v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery and theft of property. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for reduction of his sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. Approximately one year later, Appellant filed a second pro se petition seeking postconviction relief under section 16-90-111 and invoking Ark. R. Crim. P. 371. Appellant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied all three requests for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and declared his motion moot, holding that because Appellant’s petitions were untimely filed, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. View "Perrian v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a negotiated plea of guilty to charges in two criminal cases. Five years later, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis in the circuit court seeking to amend a previously filed petition for the writ that challenged his convictions in one of the two cases. Less than two months later, Petitioner filed three pro se petitions in the Supreme Court seeking (1) a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit judge to conduct a hearing on the amended petition for writ of error coram nobis, (2) to supplement his petition for the writ of mandamus, and (3) an order that the circuit court proceedings be held in abeyance. The Supreme Court denied the petitions for the writ of mandamus and to supplement the petition for the writ of mandamus and declared the petition seeking a stay moot, holding that Petitioner failed to present an issue that satisfied the factors necessary for issuance of a writ of mandamus. View "Gonder v. Glover" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide and inadequate insurance during an accident and sentenced to six months in the county jail. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and dismissed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the negligent-homicide charge because the State failed to present sufficient evidence of criminal negligence; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of inadequate insurance because the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant failed to carry adequate insurance at the time of the accident. View "Gill v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a prisoner, filed a petition for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus seeking to have the circuit court declare Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609 unconstitutional, declare his commitment invalid, and order the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) to recalculate his parole eligibility. The circuit court dismissed the matter, finding that Appellant alleged no meritorious basis for the relief he sought. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in failing to declare that the ADC’s calculation of Appelalnt's parole eligibility was in error and failing to order the ADC to recalculate his parole eligibility; and (2) Appellant presented no meritorious basis in challenging the ADC’s interpretation of section 16-93-609 and its application to calculate his parole eligibility. View "Wright v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of residential burglary and rape. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in excluding evidence of DNA from semen samples found on the victim’s bedsheet and pillow that were inconsistent with his DNA. Appellant asserted that the evidence was relevant to his theory of misidentification and that the probative value of evidence of another person’s semen at the crime scene outweighed any prejudice to the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not commit a manifest abuse of discretion in denying Appellant’s motions to admit such evidence pursuant to the rape-shield statute. View "Thacker v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of rape and four counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant then filed a pro se notice of appeal, and his counsel filed a notice of appeal. The record was not timely lodged with the clerk of court. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for rule on clerk, admitting that he did not tender the record in this case. The Supreme Court granted the motion, as there was error on counsel’s part in failing to timely lodge the record. View "McCulley v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated residential burglary, attempted kidnapping, first-degree battery, and aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment. After the parties had filed their respective briefs on appeal, Appellant’s counsel filed a third motion to withdraw as counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding (1) none of the rulings adverse to Appellant presented grounds for reversal; and (2) Appellant’s pro se points on appeal offered no ground for reversal. View "Her v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a guilty plea to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, alleging that he was denied his right to counsel during questioning sessions with law enforcement officers, that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his plea, and that the circuit court erroneously found his habeas corpus petition constituted a strike under Ark. Code Ann. 16-68-607. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to raise grounds cognizable in a habeas proceeding, and therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the petition. View "Gardner v. Hobbs" on Justia Law