Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to battery in the first degree and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 132 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in not advising him when the plea was entered that he would not be eligible for parole. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate that his plea was not a valid plea. View "Paige v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of theft of property. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se verified petition for relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court dismissed the petition on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to consider it because it failed to comply with the requirements of the Rule as set out in Rule 37.1(b) pertaining to the width of margins in a petition. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded, holding that because compliance with Rule 37.1(b) is not jurisdictional in nature and a court may elect to rule on a petition that does no comply with Rule 37.1(b), the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Moss v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and tampering with evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising allegations of trial error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition also reiterated issues raised on direct appeal. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and mooted the motions related the appeal, holding that because failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action, Appellant failed to establish that a writ of habeas corpus should issue in her case. View "Meadows v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court while he was incarcerated at an Arkansas Department of Correction facility in Lincoln County. Appellant was subsequently transferred to a facility in Hot Spring County. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, holding that, although the Lincoln County Circuit Court may have retained subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellant, it did not retain personal jurisdiction over him where he had subsequently been transferred to a facility in a different county, and thus the court lacked the authority to issue and make a returnable writ. View "Jones v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to multiple drug-related offenses. Petitioner's private counsel filed a timely notice appeal from the orders but, subsequently, was suspended from the practice of law. Petitioner filed pro se motions for rule on clerk and for the appointment of counsel and filed a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record, asserting that because his private attorney was suspended from the practice of law during the time period in which the complete record on appeal should have been lodged, he had good reason for filing to timely perfect his appeal. The Supreme Court (1) granted the motion for rule on clerk, concluding that Petitioner had good cause for failing to perfect his appeal; (2) granted Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel, as Petitioner was indigent; and (3) issue the writ of certiorari. View "Holmes v. State" on Justia Law

In 2003, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se complaint for declaratory judgment and petition for writ of mandamus against the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) director and records supervisor, contending that he should not be required by Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-611 to serve seventy percent of his sentence before being eligible for parole or transfer because the statute was unconstitutional and conflicted with other state statutes. The circuit court denied the complaint and petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motion related to the appeal moot, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for declaratory judgment, and without establishing a right to declaratory judgment, Appellant provided no basis for a writ of mandamus to issue. View "Gardner v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In 1999, after a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and rape and sentenced to death. Counsel was subsequently appointed to represent Appellant in postconviction proceedings. Counsel decided to forgo Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 relief. In 2006, Appellant filed a Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief, asserting allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that he was mentally retarded and therefore could not be executed. In 2012, the circuit court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case and considering the punishment at issue, the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing Appellant's Rule 37 petition in the absence of a hearing and specific written findings on the issue of whether good cause existed for the belated filing of the petition. Remanded. View "Engram v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault Appellant and was required to register as a sex offender. The Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Program (SOSRA) assigned Appellant a Community Notification Level 3 after conducting a community notification risk assessment. The Sex Offender Assessment Committee upheld the Level 3 assessment. The circuit court denied and dismissed Appellant's petition for judicial review of the final administrative order. Appellant appealed the denial of his petition, and the Committee filed a cross-appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on an untimely petition. The Supreme Court reversed on cross-appeal, holding that Petitioner did not establish that the petition had been timely filed, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. View "Edwards v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery and battery in the second degree. Appellant's probation for an earlier conviction for aggravated assault was also revoked. The circuit court imposed an aggregate sentence of 180 months' imprisonment. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that she was forced to sign a plea agreement by which she would be required to serve seventy percent of the sentence imposed and that, at the time, she believed she would be required to serve only fifty percent of the sentence. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the petition was not timely filed as to the judgment-and-commitment order or the revocation order, and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. View "Ybarra v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, after a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced to an aggregate term of sixty-five years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. In 2010, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 seeking scientific testing of certain evidence. The circuit court denied the petition, finding it to be untimely because the evidence was not newly discovered for purposes of the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's petition on the ground that it was untimely filed because Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness; and (2) the remainder of Appellant's petition raised claims that were not cognizable in a petition for habeas corpus, and therefore, the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition was not clearly erroneous. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law