Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thereafter, Appellant, by and through his attorney, filed a motion for rule on clerk seeking to appeal the sentencing order. Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s attorney admitted that the notice of appeal was untimely filed due to his error. The Supreme Court treated the motion for rule on clerk as a motion for belated appeal and granted the motion, as Appellant’s attorney candidly admitted fault for the appeal not being timely perfected in accordance with McDonald v. State. View "McClinton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of theft of property and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Appellant, by and through her attorney, subsequently filed a motion for rule on clerk seeking to appeal the sentencing order. Appellant’s attorney admitted that the notice of appeal was untimely filed due to his error. The Supreme Court treated the motion for rule on clerk as a motion for belated appeal and granted the motion, as Appellant’s attorney candidly admitted fault in accordance with McDonald v. State for the appeal not being timely perfected. In addition, a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of capital murder and one count of kidnapping. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied relief. There was no timely notice of appeal as to either order. Petitioner filed this pro se motion for rule on clerk seeking to lodge the record and proceed with the appeal. The Supreme Court treated the motion as a petition for belated appeal and denied it, as Petitioner did not establish good cause to excuse the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, Petitioner asserted that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence and knowingly allowed the State’s witnesses to commit perjury. The Supreme Court denied the petition on the grounds that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record sufficient to overcome the presumption that the judgment of conviction in his case was valid. View "Barnett v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape. Before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s third petition seeking to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner repeated the assertions contained in his first and second petitions, arguing that the prosecution fabricated evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment, and that the trial court committed error in admitting the evidence. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that, as with the first and second petitions, Petitioner had not stated a ground for the writ and that Petitioner’s successive application for coram-nobis relief was an abuse of the writ. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of fourth-degree sexual assault, possession of a firearm by a felon, two counts of fleeing, and resisting arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that the three attorneys who represented him at trial were ineffective. The trial court dismissed and denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court was clearly erroneous in summarily denying postconviction relief. View "Magness v. State" on Justia Law

The district court found Appellant guilty of the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). On appeal, the circuit court affirmed, concluding that no culpable mental state was required for the DWI offense and that the stipulated facts provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellant had violated the Omnibus DWI Act of 1983. Appellant was sentenced to one day in jail. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that the Act does not require proof of a culpable mens rea, as provided in Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-203. View "Leeka v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of capital felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a pro se petition seeking leave to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, contending, among other things, that the prosecution at his trial withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation, Petitioner’s assertions of trial error were outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding, and any issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses also were not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding. View "Ventress v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief challenging a judgment of conviction entered against him. The trial court dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was not timely filed. Petitioner subsequently sought leave in the Supreme Court to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion because Petitioner's postconviction petition was not verified in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 37.1(c), and as a result, the petition was not properly before the trial court. Petitioner sought rehearing or reconsideration of that decision. The Supreme Court treated the petition as a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion because Petitioner did not put forth any issues regarding an error of law or fact in the opinion denying his motion for belated appeal. View "Nutt v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and unauthorized use of property to facilitate a crime. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s Rule 37.1 petition, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in refusing to grant relief on the points raised by Defendant. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law