Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1995, Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and was sentenced to forty years in prison. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct his sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. Specifically, Appellant alleged that the sentence imposed was illegal because it exceeded the sentence prescribed in the Arkansas Sentencing Commission guidelines. The trial court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s forty-year sentence was within the range set by statute; and (2) because Appellant did not demonstrate that his sentence was illegal, he was entitled to no relief under the statute. View "Ehler v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1983, Petitioner was found guilty of murder in the first degree and aggravated robbery. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. In 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se petition requesting permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition was denied. Petitioner then filed a second petition requesting permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error corm nobis. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) to the extent Petitioner again alleged a Brady violation and asserted that erroneous evidence was used to establish that he was a habitual offender, these two claims were asserted in Petitioner’s first petition and were an abuse of the writ; (2) Petitioner’s remaining claims were either without merit or outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding; and (3) even if Petitioner had presented grounds sufficient to support issuance of the writ, his failure to act with due diligence would constitute good cause to deny the petition. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

In 2006, judgment was entered reflecting Appellant’s jury convictions for possession of cocaine, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting two grounds for the writ that were based on allegations of double jeopardy violations resulting from the convictions for possession of cocaine and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that the claims were not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief because there was no double jeopardy violation in Appellant’s challenged convictions, and the two convictions did not impose an illegal sentence. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to theft of property and theft by receiving. In 2013, Appellant filed a petition for declaratory judgment contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction refused to follow the relevant statutes and regulations to credit him with his earned meritorious good time for purposes of determining parole eligibility. The circuit court dismissed the petition. Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal from the order dismissing the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it was untimely. View "Tubbs v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an unverified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 challenging the judgment of conviction entered against him in his criminal case. The trial court dismissed the petition. Petitioner subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which was not timely. Petitioner here sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion for belated appeal, holding that Petitioner did not file a properly verified petition, and even if he had, the motion for belated appeal would be subject to denial because Petitioner did not meet his burden of stating good cause for the failure to timely file a notice of appeal. View "Nutt v. State" on Justia Law

In 1986, a jury found Appellant guilty of burglary, aggravated robbery, and rape. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment and twenty years. The sentence was enhanced for committing aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and for using a firearm and a deadly weapon while committing rape. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the enhancement for use of a firearm is illegal, and therefore, the judgment-and-commitment order was facially invalid. The circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was not illegal, and therefore, Appellant did not establish a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Kindall v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated residential burglary, both carrying sentences of life imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California, asserting that there were no non frivolous arguments that would arguably support an appeal. The Supreme Court declined to consider the appeal and ordered rebriefing, holding that Counsel’s no-merit brief failed to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) because (1) the brief failed to address every adverse ruling, the sufficiency of the evidence, or Appellant’s motion for directed verdict; and (2) the Court’s independent Rule 4-3(i) review was not a substitute for Counsel’s responsibility under Anders. View "Her v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder as an accomplice and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. Appellant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in denying postconviction relief because he would have accepted the State’s plea offer had his counsel disclosed the evidence against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of his trial counsel. View "Camp v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The circuit court denied Appellant’s petition without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that while Appellant’s signature on the petition was notarized, it was unclear from the face of the petition whether the accompanying affidavit was sworn to before a notary as required by Rule 37.1(c). The Court remanded the case for findings of fact, holding that the issue of whether the underlying petition was properly verified was determinative of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

In 1987, Appellant was convicted of rape, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and burglary. The convictions were affirmed on appeal, and Appellant’s subsequently filed petitions for postconviction relief were unsuccessful. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction forensic DNA testing, requesting that he be allowed to conduct DNA testing of the knife that was identified by the victim as the knife Appellant used during the rape, aggravated robbery, and burglary. The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant (1) failed to satisfy the statutory chain-of-custody requirements, (2) failed to satisfy the timeliness requirement of Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-202(10)(B), and (3) failed to demonstrate that he should be permitted to file a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellant satisfied the statutory chain-of-custody requirements; (2) erred in finding that Appellant failed to meet the timeliness requirement of section 16-112-202(10); and (3) abused its discretion in failing to permit Appellant to file a subsequent petition under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-205(d). Remanded. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law