Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing, as Defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by this deficient performance to the extent he was deprived of a fair trial. View "Holloway v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate serving time for criminal offenses, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending (1) he was subjected to an unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification by his victims, (2) his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, (3) the prosecutor at trial questioned his invocation of his right to remain silent after arrest, and (4) he was placed in double jeopardy when he was subjected without consent to retrial after a mistrial was declared at his first trial. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared moot the motion Appellant filed in relation to the appeal, holding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. Before a new sentencing order was entered, Appellant filed four pro se pleadings in the trial court. Three of the pleadings challenged the original sentence, and the fourth was a petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared moot Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal, holding (1) when Appellant was resentenced, the first three pleadings became moot; and (2) the trial court incorrectly concluded that the postconviction relief petition was untimely on the ground that it was filed while the appeal was pending, but Appellant did not make the showing required to grant the petition. View "Glaze v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of violating a protective order (judgment-and-commitment order) and was sentenced to fifty-four months' imprisonment. His probation for a prior offense was revoked on the grounds that he had violated the order of protection (revocation order). Separately appeals were taken from the revocation order and the judgment-and-commitment order. The court of appeals affirmed the revocation order and dismissed the appeal in the judgment-and-commitment order on the ground that the only notice of appeal that was filed pertained to the revocation order only. Petitioner filed a motion to proceed with a belated appeal in the case. The Supreme Court granted the motion, as the record reflected that a timely notice of appeal was indeed filed as to the judgment-and-commitment order. As there was a valid notice of appeal, the Court treated the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. View "Standridge v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of sexual indecency with a minor for the rape of his two granddaughters and sexual indecencies on a third granddaughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to sever charges into separate trials, as the acts alleged were not part of a single scheme or plan. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion without reaching Defendant's argument because Defendant failed to renew his motion to sever after his pretrial motion for severance was overruled, and therefore, Defendant waived his right to severance. View "Pruitt v. State" on Justia Law

In 2008, after a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, three counts of kidnapping, attempted capital murder, theft of property, aggravated assault, felony fleeing, and misdemeanor fleeing. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record moot, holding that because Appellant's petition was not in compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(c), which requires the petition be accompanied by a correctly verified affidavit, it should not have been accepted for filing, and it did not act to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to consider the merits of the petition. View "Page v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 720 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, contending that DNA and fingerprint testing should be performed on a rubber mask that was introduced into evidence at his trial. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that it was not timely filed. Appellant lodged an appeal and sought to supplement the record on appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness because the testing suggested by Appellant was either available at the time of his trial or not shown to be substantially more probative than technology available at that time. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by failing to grant a directed verdict, as the State introduced substantial evidence that Defendant acted with the purpose to kill the victim; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, as the issue of Defendant's mental state was properly submitted to the jury and Defendant failed to prove that affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Kaufman v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a pro se complaint seeking an injunction to require Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin to place Appellant's name as a candidate for President of the United States on the 2012 Democratic primary ballot and to register all convicted felons to vote in that primary election. The circuit court granted Martin's motion to dismiss the complaint. Appellant appealed and filed a motion seeking permission to file a supplemental brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and declared the motion moot, holding (1) because the election for which Appellant wanted his name placed on the ballot had already occurred, and the time for registering to vote in that election had passed, the appealed question was moot; and (2) neither exception to the mootness doctrine applied here. View "Judd v. Martin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed and sought by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. View "Wedgeworth v. State" on Justia Law