Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's petition for postconviction relief alleging five grounds for relief from the judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment, holding that there was no error.The circuit court denied Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the only claims alleged in his postconviction motion, all of which it denied without an evidentiary hearing except one. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the performance of Defendant's trial counsel was not deficient and that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Arnold v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and a firearm enhancement. In his petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. The circuit court denied the petition after posthearing briefs were held. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief. View "Pree v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's motion for new trial and petition for habeas corpus, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court dismissed. Appellant then filed a motion for a new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59, which the circuit court denied and dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Appellant's habeas petition and his motion for new trial, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error. View "Scott v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict in circuit court finding Defendant guilty of failure to comply with sex-offender reporting requirements, holding that the circuit court did not err, prejudicially or otherwise, in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his timely motions for a directed verdict and in finding that he was a person required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) did not err in finding that Defendant was required to register as a sex offender. View "Lenard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to Rule 37.1 relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and two counts of first-degree battery. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief Petitioner argued, among other things, that he was subject to an unlawful arrest, that his due process rights were violated, and that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to Rule 37.1 relief. View "Braud v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's claim did not fall within the purview of habeas proceedings.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that the speedy-trial provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-95-101, was violated in his case. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were not within the purview of habeas proceedings. View "Green v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that Appellant's arguments on appeal failed to raise cognizable claims for habeas relief.Appellant pled no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit rape and seven counts of possessing matter depicting sexually explicit images involving a child. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations failed to state a claim for habeas relief, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied and dismissed the habeas petition. View "Myers v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentences were illegal.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to eighty years' imprisonment. In his petition to correct an illegal sentence, Appellant asserted that the application of Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501(c) to enhance his sentence was illegal and that the enhanced sentence violated the prohibition against the ex post facto application of criminal statutes. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his enhanced sentence was an illegal sentence pursuant to section 16-90-111. View "Rainer v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, Ark. Code Ann. 16-1120-201 to -208, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.Appellant entered a plea of guilty to residential burglary, rape, and other crimes. More than twenty years after he was convicted, Defendant filed this habeas petition, asserting that he was innocent and seeking DNA testing. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness; and (2) Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to new scientific testing. View "Mahmoud v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes and his sentence of consecutive terms of life in prison for each murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the testimony of surviving victim Lajhonta Collier identifying Defendant as the perpetrator was erroneously admitted and that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant's pretrial identification was not constitutionally improper. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law