Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree murder, among other offenses. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief, holding that because Appellant’s petition was not in compliance with Rule 37.1(c), it should not have been accepted for filing and did not act to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to consider the merits of the petition. View "Slocum v. State" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child. The court of appeals affirmed. In 2014, Appellant filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Court denied the petition. Prior to the disposition of the petition, Appellant filed the instant second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, as well as a pro se petition for leave to file an amended petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and motion, holding that Petitioner failed to raise any cognizable claims that would support issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. View "Pitts v. State" on Justia Law

In 1986, Appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and battery in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Appellant filed in the circuit court in the county where he was in custody a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis and for writ of habeas corpus, contending, among other claims, that he was actually innocent of the offenses. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motion for appointment of counsel, holding (1) the circuit court where Appellant was incarcerated did not have authority to consider Appellant’s writ of error coram nobis; and (2) Appellant did not state a ground on which the writ of habeas corpus could issue. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of delivery of crack cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Appellant’s counsel (1) did not render ineffective assistance by failing to produce testimony that was promised on opening statement; but (2) provided ineffective assistance by neglecting to make proper motions for directed verdict. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. View "Conley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with murder in the first degree. Before trial, Appellant gave notice that he intended to assert the affirmative defense of a lack of capacity as a result of mental disease or defect and provided the State with a report by Dr. Bradley Diner, a psychiatrist. The circuit court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude Dr. Diner’s testimony as it related to mental disease or defect. Defendant was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State’s motion in limine and disallowing the opinion of Dr. Diner. View "Bowden v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, not advising him that he would not be eligible for parole until he had served seventy percent of his sentence. The trial court denied Appellant’s petition after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motion Appellant filed asking for counsel to be appointed to represent him, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief on Appellant’s claims. View "Barber v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder, among other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the capital-murder charge. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict because the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he acted with the requisite intent of premeditation and deliberation. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant’s conviction for capital murder, holding that the circuit court engaged in speculation in determining that Appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation and improperly shifted the burden of proof when weighing the evidence. View "Thornton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and committing a felony with a firearm and sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment, including a statutory enhancement. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which the trial court denied. After Appellant appealed from the denial of his petition, Appellant filed a pleading titled “petition to reinvest jurisdiction,” seeking to have the Supreme Court return jurisdiction to the trial court so that he could obtain a ruling on issues not addressed in the order denying postconviction relief. The Supreme Court (1) denied the petition to reinvest jurisdiction for failing to comply with the procedural rules, and (2) dismissed Appellant’s appeal because Appellant indicated that he did not believe the appeal had merit unless he was permitted to obtain the additional rulings and because he did not file a brief in support of his appeal within the time permitted. View "Plessy v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the circuit court dismissed. The record established that Petitioner did not file a timely notice of appeal from the order. Petitioner subsequently sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to perfect an appeal in a timely manner because his bare statement that he filed a notice of appeal was not sufficient cause to permit the appeal to go forward. View "Kennel v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of rape of his biological daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and related trial errors. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record did not support the allegations, the allegations were without merit or conclusory, and Appellant was otherwise not entitled to relief on his claims. View "Breeden v. State" on Justia Law