Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft of property, with a firearm enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, claiming that he was denied a fair and impartial trial, that his confession was the result of coercion by law enforcement, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during trial. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motions Appellant filed in relation to the appeal, holding that the petition was wholly without merit. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count each of rape and kidnapping. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), contending that the ADC had violated his due process rights in calculating his transfer-eligibility date because Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-611 did not require that Defendant serve seventy percent of his sentence before being eligible for community-punishment placement. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to set forth any convincing argument or authority in support of his contentions. View "Ritter v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of four counts rape and sentenced to four consecutive terms of 480 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging claims of trial error, insufficiency of the felony information, and due process and equal protection violations. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The State filed a forfeiture complaint alleging that a drug task force had seized property - $1,427 in U.S. currency - from Appellant in connection with felony violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and ordered the currency forfeited to the prosecuting attorney’s office. The circuit court granted the State’s motion for default judgment based on Appellant’s failure to respond to the complaint and order. More than one year later, Appellant filed a motion for return of the seized property on the basis that the currency was not being used for evidentiary purposes because the charges filed against him had been dismissed. The circuit court denied the motion, finding it without merit and untimely and that Appellant had stated no valid reason for setting aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show any reason for setting aside the default judgment. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life in prison without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, denied Appellant’s motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court, and mooted Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and to stay appeal, holding that Appellant’s allegations were conclusory or failed to provide a basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Craigg v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and possessing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, claiming that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either conclusory, not supported by the evidence, not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, or without merit. View "Boatwright v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate at a prison facility in Lee County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. Petitioner did not timely appeal from the order and subsequently sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal. As his ground to permit a belated appeal, Petitioner argued that his notice of appeal, which was filed one day late, should be considered timely filed because the Labor Day holiday should not be counted when calculating the thirty-day period to file the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion for belated appeal, holding that Petitioner’s motion was without merit where Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 does not require that a legal holiday that occurred during the thirty-day period be excluded in the calculation of the thirty days to file the notice of appeal. View "Betts v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of rape, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping and sentenced to 135 years’ imprisonment. Nearly thirty years after the date of his commitment, Petitioner filed a pleading that the Supreme Court treated as a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petition, holding (1) because the petition was untimely filed, Petitioner had the burden of establishing that the judgment of conviction was void; and (2) Petitioner did not establish that there was a ground sufficient to void the judgment of conviction, and therefore, Petitioner failed to meet his burden. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault. Petitioner subsequently filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that his guilty plea was coerced and that newly discovered evidence warranted issuance of the writ. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner later sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying coram nobis relief where (1) Petitioner’s claims did not rise to the level of coercion required to demonstrate that a writ of error coram nobis should issue; and (2) the petition did not demonstrate a Brady violation in that there was no fact cited by Petitioner that could not have been known at the time the plea was entered. View "Bannister v. State" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Charles and Nancy Brannon. The circuit court later vacated Appellant’s convictions and sentences, finding that the prosecution’s failure to reveal information about one of its witnesses prejudiced Appellant’s right to a fair trial. Appellant was retried for the murders in 2012, was against convicted of both counts of capital murder, and was sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) permitting Byron Hopes to testify because although his testimony was procured through an illegal sentence reduction, the proper remedy was cross-examination of the witness, not suppression of the testimony; (2) holding that the cross-examination of Hopes about the deal would open the door to testimony about Appellant's other murder case; (3) finding that transcripts of witness testimony from Appellant's first trial were admissible in his new trial; and (4) excluding part of the prior testimony of Bill Keeling, whose testimony was previously proffered but rejected in Appellant's first trial. View "Sanders v. State" on Justia Law