Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder as well as firearm enhancements. Appellant was sentenced to two life sentences. Appellant appealed, alleging five claims of error. The Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of Appellant’s arguments because Appellant’s brief did not comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(2014). Specifically, the addendum did not include a DVD introduced by the parties during trial. Further, because there was no evidence of waiver, the case was remanded to the circuit court to settle the record by requiring that a verbatim transcription be made of any audio recording played at trial. Remanded to settle and supplement the record.View "Conte v. State" on Justia Law

In 2010, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The petition for postconviction relief did not bear Appellant’s signature accompanied by the verification required by Rule 37.1(c). The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that the petition was not verified in accordance with section 37.1(c), and Appellant’s argument that the petition was acceptable without verification was without merit.View "Butler v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of multiple felony offenses. The court of appeals affirmed. Sixty-two days after the mandate on affirmance of the judgment had been issued, Appellant filed a pro se request for postconviction relief challenging the judgment. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely. Appellant lodged an appeal from the order and filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot on the basis that the petition before the trial court was not timely filed, and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.View "Andrade-Martinez v. State" on Justia Law

In 1986, Appellant pleaded guilty to rape and kidnapping charges in two separate cases. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape in each of the cases. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging several claims. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that the claims were conclusory in nature and because Appellant did not act with due diligence in filing the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the claims in the petition were unsupported by factual substantiation sufficient to warrant a hearing and were not raised with due diligence. View "Weekly v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of residential burglary, aggravated robbery, and first-degree battery. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition requesting permission to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied. Petitioner then filed a second petition, which the Supreme Court construed as a request that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court so that Petitioner may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment-and-commitment order, and requesting that the Court recall the direct-appeal mandate. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner’s claims were either not cognizable in coram-nobis proceeding or were without merit.View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law

Derrick Thomas was charged with second-degree battery and second-degree assault for an incident at the Arkansas State Hospital, where Thomas had been committed for a mental evaluation in a separate criminal case in which he had been found to be incompetent to stand trial. Thomas moved to dismiss the battery charges, arguing that he was unfit to proceed to trial. The circuit court dismissed the battery charges after a hearing. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court’s dismissal of the battery charges violated Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-310(c)(2) because there was no requisite finding that Thomas had regained competence to stand trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court improperly construed section 52-310(c) in concluding it had authority to dismiss the charges against Thomas. Remanded.View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1991, Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later 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, raising three grounds for the writ. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Petitioner failed to establish that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding evidence from the defense; and (2) the remainder of Petitioner’s claims were not cognizable in an error-coram-nobis proceeding. View "McArthur v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, judgment was entered reflecting that Appellant had entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to fourteen felony offenses. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he entered the plea. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the petition was not timely filed, and accordingly, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; and (2) even if considered under the provision in the statute that allows the trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, Appellant was not entitled to relief.View "Livingston v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charge of rape and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment with an additional suspended imposition of eighty-four months’ imprisonment. More than one year after the sentencing order had been entered of record, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition as untimely. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot because the petition for postconviction relief was not timely filed, and therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.View "Daniell v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Petitioner later filed a pro se petition seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that the State withheld material evidence from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The petition was denied. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error nobis, again claiming that the State withheld information that would have resulted in a different outcome in the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner did not establish a basis for issuance of the writ in his first petition, and Petitioner’s reassertion of essentially the same claims in the instant petition was a misuse of the remedy.View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law