Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the capital murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial on the grounds that Appellant’s lawyer was improperly placed in the position of serving as a witness; (2) denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial on the grounds that the circuit court was placed in a position of judging the credibility of a witness; (3) denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial following testimony that Appellant smoked marijuana; (4) admitting statements of a co-conspirator; and (5) denying Appellant’s motion for new trial on the grounds that a key witness changed his account to positively identify Appellant as one of the participants in the robbery.View "Perry v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. On retrial, Appellant was again convicted of the crimes charged. Almost three decades later, Appellant filed pro se petitions for declaratory judgment and for writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the calculation of his parole eligibility and application of meritorious good-time credit. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that the Arkansas Department of Correction miscalculated his parole-eligibility date in a manner inconsistent with the law in effect at the time Appellant committed the crimes charged, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought.View "Lewis v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the circuit court convicted Appellant of thirty-eight counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to prove thirty-eight counts of “knowing receipt of child pornography for the purpose of distribution.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that “knowing receipt for the purpose of distribution” is not among the elements the State must prove to sustain a charge of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child.View "Klosky v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, by and through his attorney John R. Irwin, filed a motion for rule on clerk and a motion to be relieved as counsel. In his motion for rule on clerk Irwin claimed that the clerk refused to file the untimely record because of Irwin’s failure to follow the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal. The Supreme Court (1) granted the motion for rule on clerk, as Irwin candidly admitted fault in accordance with McDonald v. State; and (2) granted the motion to be relieved as counsel because Irwin - a full-time, state-salaried public defender - was not eligible for compensation on appeal.View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of sexual assault in the second degree and rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of 720 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt, that his conviction was the result of ineffective assistance from his attorney, and that there were a number of errors in his trial. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition did not make the showing required for issuance of the writ, and therefore, the circuit court did not err when it dismissed the petition.View "Holliday v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to two sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the capital murders and two sentences of life imprisonment for the aggravated robberies, to be served consecutively. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was not afforded effective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and declared the motion filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant failed to make even one meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.View "Winters v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape and one count of first-degree sexual abuse. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 480 months’ imprisonment for the rape convictions and 120 months’ imprisonment for the sexual-abuse conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his plea was not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly given due to alleged ineffectiveness of counsel and the trial court’s failure to properly advise him of the charges and his rights. The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly denied the petition on the grounds that the petition was without merit and the claims in it were not brought with due diligence.View "Wilburn v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In his pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, Petitioner contended that he was entitled to issuance of the writ on the ground that the State wrongfully withheld material evidence from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that the State withheld information that would have resulted in a different outcome in the proceedings.View "Slocum v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to death and life imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective during the sentencing phase of his capital-murder trial and during opening statements. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief because he could not demonstrate that he was prejudiced as required by the second prong of Strickland v. Washington at either phase of his trial.View "Sales v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment with an additional 180 months’ suspended imposition of sentence for each count. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the proscription against double jeopardy was violated in his case because he was convicted of both delivery of a controlled substance and possession of the controlled substance with intent to deliver. The circuit court denied habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the face of the judgment demonstrated that the judgment was invalid.View "Quezada v. Hobbs" on Justia Law