Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted on three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of three consecutive life sentences plus 360 months’ imprisonment. Here, Petitioner filed a pro se petition and an amended petition seeking to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the judge in his case was biased and that the prosecutor engaged in impermissible misconduct. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding (1) Petitioner did not make the necessary showing of fundamental error to support relief where there was no demonstration of actual bias; and (2) Petitioner’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were either conclusory or were not the type that provide grounds for the writ. View "Chatmon v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape, residential burglary, and third-degree domestic battery. Appellant later filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the judgment reflecting his criminal convictions, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he was illegally arrested, that the information charging him was defective, and that no plea was entered before his trial. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order dismissing the petition for the writ, holding that, although Appellant may have raised issues on appeal that questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court, none of his allegations had merit, and the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant’s petition did not set forth the required probable cause. View "Anderson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that, based on a totality of the evidence under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. View "Airsman v. State" on Justia Law

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