Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of aggravated robbery and other crimes. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, contending that there was new scientific evidence that would prove he was actually innocent of seven of the counts of aggravated robbery to which he pled guilty and that he should have been convicted of only one of five aggravated robbery counts because the five robberies were a continuing course of conduct. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief under the Act.View "Barton v. State" on Justia Law

In 1978, Appellant entered negotiated pleas of guilty in circuit court to one count of first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of first-degree battery. Appellant received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the first-degree murder charge and each of the aggravated-robbery charges. The sentencing orders for each charge stated that Appellant was to serve one-third of the sentences before becoming eligible for parole. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging, inter alia, that the sentencing orders were facially invalid and that his life sentences for aggravated robbery and first-degree murder were unconstitutional. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed and issued a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the sentencing orders entered in this case were facially invalid because the circuit court exceeded its statutory authority by sentencing Defendant to terms of imprisonment of life with the possibility of parole for Class A felonies.View "Hale v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied the petition for habeas relief. Petitioner failed to file a timely notice of appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion that the Supreme Court treated as a motion to proceed with a belated appeal, asserting that the clerk was at fault concerning his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not provide any ground for the motion that had merit, and therefore, Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal.View "Travis v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

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