Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault. Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ probation and subject to sex-offender-registration requirements. The next year the State filed a felony information alleging that Defendant had failed to comply with registration and reporting requirements. The circuit court found Defendant guilty of the offense of failure to comply with the registration and reporting requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-904. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as (1) the State was not required to prove any culpable-mental-state element of the offense; and (2) the State provided sufficient evidence of what address Defendant had registered with the local law enforcement agency responsible for monitoring sex-offender registration. View "Morrow v. State" on Justia Law

In 1997, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-611, in effect at the time Appellant committed the offenses, a person found guilty of first-degree murder was not eligible for parole until he served seventy percent of his sentence. In 1999, section 16-93-611 was amended to allow the trial court to waive the seventy-percent requirement if the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. At the time he committed the offenses, Appellant was fourteen years old. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion seeking waiver of the seventy-percent requirement, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to retroactively apply section 16-93-611 as amended to waive the requirement. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter because the motions were not filed ninety days after the entry of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion was untimely. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, and alleging that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to retry his case because of a speedy-trial violation. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish a basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. View "Hubbard v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his criminal conviction, the prosecutor committed misconduct at trial, he was denied his right to a fair trial before an impartial judge, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to file a belated reply brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis on which the writ could issue, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying relief. View "Sims v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder, residential burglary, and theft of property. Appellant was sentenced to life without parole for capital murder. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising several claims. The circuit court denied the habeas petition. Appellant lodged an appeal from that order and then filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action and therefore failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Hinkston v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, plus fifteen years for a firearm enhancement. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) there was substantial evidence to support Appellant’s conviction for first-degree murder, and the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for directed verdict; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress his statements; and (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion in limine to exclude certain photographs that Appellant claimed were irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative.` View "Airsman v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant was convicted of rape. In 2014, Appellant, who was incarcerated, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, among other things, that while the offense for which he was convicted occurred in Chicot County, he entered his guilty plea in Desha County, making the sentence imposed illegal. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to substantiate a claim within the purview of a habeas action, as (1) Appellant did not show, by affidavit or other evidence, that he was illegally detained; and (2) Appellant’s claim that the DNA testing in his case was incomplete did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. View "Willams v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery. Petitioner later filed a timely petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that it had not been properly verified. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the order dismissing the Rule 37.1 petition. Petitioner then tendered to the Supreme Court’s clerk a record for the appeal. The clerk declined to file the record on the basis that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se motion to have the clerk lodge the record and proceed with a belated appeal and another motion requesting the record at public expense. The Supreme Court treated the motion to lodge the record as a motion for belated appeal and denied both motions, holding (1) the clerk correctly declined to accept the record on the basis that the notice of appeal was not timely filed; and (2) Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a compelling need for free copying of material at public expense. View "Wade v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, by and through his attorney, N. Mark Klappenbach, filed a motion for rule on clerk with the Supreme Court seeking to appeal a sentencing order revoking his suspended sentence for possession of a controlled substance. In the motion, Klappenbach admitted that the notice of appeal was untimely filed due to his error, with no fault attributable to Appellant. The Supreme Court treated the motion for rule on clerk as a motion for belated appeal and granted the motion because Klappenbach candidly admitted fault for failing to timely perfect the appeal. View "Paschal v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. In 2010, Appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when he entered his guilty plea and during his Rule 37.1 proceeding. The trial court denied the petition. Now before the Supreme Court were Appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and his petition for writ of certiorari in which he urged the Court to find that the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion and petition moot, holding that Appellant failed to establish a sufficient ground for issuance of the writ. View "Millsap v. State" on Justia Law