Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, the circuit court convicted Defendant of aggravated assault on a family or household member. The court also determined that a child was present during the commission of the offense. The sentencing order imposed an enhancement for committing the offense in the presence of a child. For the enhancement, the court sentenced Defendant to one year incarceration, suspended. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court imposed an illegal sentence by suspending the sentence for the enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) jurisdiction of the State's appeal was properly in the Court; and (2) the circuit court lacked the authority to suspend the sentence for the enhancement. View "State v. Colvin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder, battery in the first degree, and two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently field a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant raised five points on appeal. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed after having considered all of the arguments raised by Appellant on appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Norris v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an allegedly illegal detention, (2) evidence where the allegedly warrantless search of his vehicle was not reasonable, and (3) the custodial statement that allegedly violated his Miranda rights and the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) the detention of Defendant was legal because the purpose of the legal traffic stop was ongoing; (2) law enforcement had sufficient probable cause to search Defendant's vehicle; and (3) the custodial statement was admissible where it was made after Miranda warnings that were clearly effective. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse and sentenced to life imprisonment. For his sole argument on appeal, Defendant contended that the circuit court erred in refusing his proffered alternative instruction to the standard instruction on lesser-included offenses, which he alleged would have allowed the jury to consider the lesser charge of extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter without first acquitting him of murder. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court was not without a rational basis for giving the manslaughter instruction and thus erred by not giving the proffered instruction. Remanded. View "Fincham v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for theft of property and sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. The judgment was not appealed. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for reduction of sentence but did not contend her sentence was illegal. The court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court was constrained in its ability to grant relief because it was without jurisdiction to modify, amend, or revise a valid sentence once it has been put into execution, and because Appellant's sentence was put into execution when the trial court issued the sentencing order, the trial court was without authority to grant relief on Appellant's proposed bases. View "Denson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, actual or constructive denial of counsel, and denial of a fair trial. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that, based on the record and the petition, none of Appellant's claims in the petition were meritorious. View "Daniels v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced consecutively to two sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the capital murders and two sentences of life imprisonment for the aggravated robberies. Appellant appealed, contending, among other things, that a witness, Arron Lewis, should have been allowed to testify as to a "statement against interest" that Appellant's accomplice made to Lewis. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of convictions, holding (1) Appellant's statements to police were made voluntarily and free of coercion, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to exclude Lewis' testimony as to Appellant's accomplice's statement against penal interest where the proffered statement did not exculpate Appellant. View "Winters v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on each aggravated robbery conviction. Defendant appealed his convictions, arguing (1) because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the person who committed the crimes, the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict; and (2) the circuit court erred his motion to dismiss the charges based on the State's failure to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) and its failure to follow proper extradition procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the verdicts where the evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes; and (2) the record did not support Defendant's assertion that after being brought to Arkansas under court order, he was returned to Mississippi, where he was picked up from a Mississippi prison, and therefore, the Court was precluded from addressing the merits of Defendant's second argument. View "Spearman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property in the armed robbery of two bank employees as they were filling an ATM machine. The Supreme Court affirmed. Seventy-four days after the mandate issued, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition on the merits. Appellant appealed. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that because Appellant's petition was filed fourteen days after the sixty-day period to file a timely petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the Rule 37.1 petition. View "Burks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 720 months' imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Two years after the petition was denied, Petitioner again filed a coram-nobis petition, raising the same allegation in the second petition as in the first. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner's successive application for coram-nobis relief was an abuse of the writ because he alleged no facts sufficient to distinguish his claim in the instant petition from the claim in the first. View "Kelly v. State" on Justia Law