Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of theft of property and two counts of aggravated robbery for robbing a bank. At trial, Appellant argued that he was involuntarily intoxicated at the time of the robbery due to the combination of prescription medications he was taking. Appellant sought postconviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to subpoena certain prescription records from the pharmacy, failed to subpoena a pharmacy employee who could authenticate the records, and did not request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery, resulting in Appellant’s conviction of the greater offense of aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not prejudiced by his attorneys’ failure to procure the records or testimony regarding the prescription records; and (2) Appellant’s second argument was not preserved for appeal. View "Feuget v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to one count of theft of property-credit/debit card or account number and two counts of misdemeanor fraudulent use of a credit card. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court held that it must affirm on appeal where it was unable to determine whether the trial court’s findings were sufficient concerning Appellant’s claims because the record the record was insufficient concerning all of Appellant’s points on appeal. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the writ should issue on the ground that he would not have entered a plea of guilty in his criminal case if his attorney had correctly advised him on his eligibility for parole. The claim, however, did not call into question the trial court’s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the judgment. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motion filed in connection with the appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis upon which the writ could issue. View "Sims v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated robbery. Though represented by counsel, Petitioner filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on his own behalf. The circuit court entered an on order admonishing Petitioner that, until his counsel was relieved as the attorney of record, Petitioner was not permitted to file any pro se pleadings on his own behalf. Petitioner subsequently tendered a partial record to the clerk of the Court of Appeals. The clerk declined to lodge the record. Petitioner’s counsel then filed in the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record and a motion to withdraw as counsel. The petition and motion were denied without prejudice, and no further action was taken by counsel to perfect the appeal. Before the Supreme Court here was Petitioner’s pro se motion to appoint new counsel. The Court granted the motion, appointed new counsel to represent Petitioner with this appeal, and issued a writ of certiorari to the circuit court to bring up the remainder of the record for the appeal. View "Mercouri v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape, three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, and three counts of sexual indecency with a child. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the rape convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) Appellant’s challenge to the denial of his motion to dismiss cannot be reached by the Court because Appellant changed the basis of his argument on appeal; (2) Appellant’s allegations of evidentiary errors are moot in light of the fact that the remedy for evidentiary errors is a new trial, and that remedy is not available to Appellant because he is deceased; and (3) the Court will not address Appellant’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because he changed his argument on appeal. View "Dowdy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of several criminal offenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s pro se petition for review. More than four years after the mandate was issued, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). Appellant then filed a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Appellant had no colorable cause of action that would entitle him to proceed as a pauper. Appellant appealed from both the order that denied the Rule 37.1 petition and the order that denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding (1) the trial court denied Appellant’s Rule 37.1 petition on the grounds of untimeliness, and (2) any issue regarding the denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was moot. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant was found guilty of rape and sexual indecency with a minor. An aggregate sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment was imposed. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. The circuit court denied relief, and Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared moot the motion filed in connection to the appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis on which the writ could issue. View "Pruitt v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed on all points except for the tampering with physical evidence conviction, which the Court reversed and dismissed, holding (1) Appellant’s arguments that the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motions on the rape conviction were not preserved for appellate review; (2) substantial evidence did not support Appellant’s conviction for tampering with physical evidence; (3) Appellant waived his right to pursue his argument that the circuit court erred when it failed to remove a juror with ties to the rape victim’s family; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it declined Appellant’s request to give a lesser-included offense jury instruction for the rape charge. View "Hartman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s convictions because the State introduced ample direct and circumstantial evidence that Appellant was the person who committed the crimes; (2) the circuit court did not err in allowing the State to introduce into evidence certain audio recordings of phone conversations; and (3) the Court was precluded from reviewing either of Appellant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Chatmon v. State" on Justia Law

In 1979, Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant was seventeen years old when he committed the offense. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se complaint for declaratory relief alleging that the parole-eligibility statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because Graham v. Florida established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide offenses. The circuit court denied the complaint. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court ordered Appellant to file a supplemental addendum, as Appellant’s addendum was deficient in that he failed to provide certain pleadings pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-7. View "Bramlett v. Hobbs" on Justia Law