Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled no contest to two misdemeanors and one Class D felony. At the time of his sentencing, the Community Punishment Act (CPA) allowed Appellant to petition the court to expunge the record of his offense upon the successful completion of probation. Subsequent to Appellant’s sentencing, the General Assembly passed the Comprehensive Criminal Record Sealing Act (CCRSA), which amended the CPA so that the procedure for sealing records under the CPA would be in accordance with the CCRSA. Less than three weeks after the CCRSA became effective, Appellant completed his felony probation and petitioned the circuit court to seal all of his records. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that Appellant was required to wait five years after completing his probation before the records could be sealed under the CCRSA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in retroactively applying the CCRSA to Appellant’s felony conviction because the legislature did not intend for the CCRSA to apply retroactively to Appellant’s felony conviction. Remanded for the court to apply the CPA to Appellant’s felony conviction and the CCRSA to his misdemeanor convictions. View "Bolin v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed two pro se motions entitled “Motion for a State of Duress.” The trial court denied both motions. The motions consisted collateral challenges to the judgment mixed with direct challenges to the judgment that should have been raised at the time Appellant entered his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) to the extent that Appellant raised claims cognizable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, the motions were not timely filed; and (2) with respect to those claims that were a direct challenge to the judgment, these issues did not present a cause for granting postconviction relief, as the issues could have been settled in the trial court at the time Appellant entered his plea. View "Winnett v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for leave to proceed in forma paupers with respect to a petition for judicial review. Also tendered for filing was Petitioner’s proposed order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The circuit court denied the petition, but there was no effective order made. Petitioner sought to appeal and filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the filing of a motion for rule on clerk. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as there was no effective order from which Petitioner may appeal. View "Ehler v. Post-Prison Transfer Bd." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as an accomplice to both capital murder and kidnapping. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the capital-murder charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the introduction of the video and transcript of Appellant’s interview with police did not violate her right to confront witnesses against her under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment where the police repeated statements made by co-defendants who did not testify at trial because the co-defendants’ statements in this case were not hearsay. View "Swain v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner tendered for filing a pro se petition for leave to proceed in forma paupers with respect to a petition for judicial review. The petition to proceed in forma paupers was denied, but the petition and order were not file-marked or assigned a case number. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition and filed the appeal record to the clerk of the Supreme Court. The record was rejected because it lacked a file-marked copy of the order from which Petitioner sought to appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the filing of a motion for rule on clerk. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as there was no effective order from which Petitioner may appeal. View "Mitchell v. Post-Prison Transfer Bd." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was deprived the effective assistance of counsel and that he was denied a fair trial stemming from a motion to change venue. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. Appellant appealed and moved for extension of time to file his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding (1) Appellant did not meet his burden to overcome the presumption that trial counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of professional assistance; and (2) Appellant’s claim of trial error was not grounds for relief under Rule 37.1. View "Bowden v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of attempted rape and two counts of sexual assault in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner also filed a petition for writ of certiorari to add material to the record in support of his claims in the coram nobis petition. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding (1) Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and allegations of trial error were outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding; and (2) there was no cause on which to permit Petitioner to supplement the record to bolster the claims in the petition that were clearly without merit. View "Bean v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief as well as an amended petition, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not raise an objection to ensure that a self-defense instruction was given with respect to the lesser-included offenses and because he did not secure the testimony of an expert witness concerning the effects of the drug PCP, which was detected in the victim’s system. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims. View "Rasul v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses. Appellant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment with credit for forty-five days spent in custody before sentencing. More than eight months after the judgment had been entered, Appellant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant alleging that he was entitled to additional credit against his sentence for days held in custody. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that it was not timely filed. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion filed by Appellant was not timely filed. View "Perez v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 alleging eight grounds for relief. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant’s attorney appealed from that decision on behalf of Appellant, but because of abstract deficiencies in the brief that had been filed by the attorney, the Supreme Court ordered rebriefing. Appellant then filed a substitute brief. In his appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 37.1 petition because his defense counsel was ineffective and that he was entitled to a new Rule 37 proceeding and appointed counsel because his previous Rule 37 counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant’s request for appointment of counsel and his request to remand for a new hearing, holding (1) the allegations in Appellant’s appeal were such that it was conclusive on the face of the petition that no relief was warranted; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to a remand of his Rule 37 case for renewed proceedings on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. View "Mancia v. State" on Justia Law