Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1982, Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that he was insane at the time of trial and that his lack of competency “was an issue that was hidden and unknown and would have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at trial.” The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner pointed to no fact that could not have been brought out at the time of trial and that Petitioner failed to show due diligence in bringing his claim of insanity more than thirty years after the judgment was affirmed. View "Mackey v. State" on Justia Law

The State charged Robert Friar with one count of capital murder, among other criminal offenses. If Friar was found guilty, the State intended to seek the death penalty. The State filed a motion for an order for a mental-health evaluation of Friar. Friar objected to the request, arguing that he was not raising mental disease or defect as a defense, nor would he claim a lack of fitness to proceed, but that he would seek to bar the State from seeking the death penalty due to his mental retardation. The circuit court granted the motion and entered orders for fitness-to-proceed and criminal-responsibility evaluations of Friar. Friar filed a petition for writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of certiorari directing the circuit court to rescind its orders. The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus and granted the writ of certiorari on the criminal responsibility order, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ordering the fitness-to-proceed examination where it made a finding of reasonable suspicion; but (2) acted without jurisdiction in ordering Friar to submit to a criminal responsibility examination. View "Friar v. Erwin" on Justia Law

An Ashley County jury found Appellant guilty of rape. The judge orally pronounced sentence on Appellant in the Ashley County Circuit Court, but the judgment-and-commitment order was mistakenly filed in Drew County. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court held that the misfiling of the judgment in Drew County did not affect the Ashley County Circuit Court’s jurisdiction to sentence Appellant, and therefore, reversal was not proper. Appellant raised the same issue in a subsequent petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, concluding that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded review of the issue. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for void judgment, arguing that the Drew County judgment was void because the Drew County Circuit Court was not the sentencing court. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was precluded from revisiting the issue raised by Appellant and that the remaining issues raised for the first time on appeal were not grounds for reversal. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to rape and residential burglary and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. Two years later, Appellant filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) concerning his eligibility for parole. The circuit court declined to grant the relief sought. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arguments raised in Appellant’s petition did not entitle Appellant to relief by means of a declaratory judgment or a writ of mandamus, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition. View "Cuatepotzo v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in one case to fleeing on foot and possession of methamphetamine and to residential burglary and robbery in another case. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition and amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 that encompassed both cases, claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he entered his plea to the four offenses. The trial court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the claims raised by Appellant in his postconviction motion and argued on appeal were without merit. View "Sherman v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to charges of felony theft of property and criminal mischief. In 2013, Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to violation of his probation and to failing to register as a sex offender. After Appellant filed a motion to correct clerical mistake and motion for credit for time spent in custody, an amended sentencing order was entered. Noting that the errors in the sentencing order had been corrected, the trial court denied the motions. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the amended sentencing order did not address the allegations raised in his motions denied by the trial court. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying postconviction relief. View "Lenard v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, who was incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) located in Pulaski County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Pulaski County Circuit Court seeking release from custody. The petition was dismissed. Appellant appealed. Although Appellant was incarcerated in Pulaski County when he filed his petition, as of the date of this opinion, Appellant was incarcerated in Jefferson County. The Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeal, as the Pulaski County Circuit Court no longer had jurisdiction to effect Appellant’s release from custody. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner filed a pro se petition in the Supreme Court requesting that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court so that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, contending that the prosecution withheld evidence from the jury that was contained in the probable cause affidavit. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation with respect to the probable cause affidavit. View "Chestang v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of raping his seven-year-old stepdaughter. After the mandate issued, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not clearly err in holding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective; (2) the trial court correctly held that Appellant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct at trial was not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding; and (3) Appellant’s claim that he was dissatisfied with his attorney’s representation in the Rule 37.1 proceeding was not grounds to reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new hearing. View "McNichols v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder and battery in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Petitioner then filed a request that the Supreme Court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner also sought an injunction arising out of the coram-nobis proceeding. The Supreme Court denied the petition and declared the request for an injunction moot, holding that Petitioner failed to state a cause to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and thus the request for an injunction was moot. View "Grant v. State" on Justia Law