Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition to partially seal his criminal record, holding that there was no error.Petitioner was charged with several crimes. In 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, the capital-murder charge was reduced to first-degree murder and the kidnapping and burglary charges were nolle pressed. Petitioner then pleaded guilty to one count each of first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and attempting to furnish a prohibited article. In 2020, Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-1410 to seal the nolle prossed charges. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that 16-90-1410 limited the court's authority to partially seal a record. The Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, holding that section 16-90-1410, which became effective in 2014, was not applicable to the charges Petitioner sought to have sealed. View "Gonder v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition.Appellant pled guilty to the unlawful discharge of a firearm and first-degree battery. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his sentence for discharge of a firearm from a vehicle was illegal on its face because it should have been listed as a Class B felony rather than as a Class Y felony. The circuit court concluded that Appellant's claim for habeas relief lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief. View "Rawls v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, dismissing Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and denied Petitioner's petition to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of thirty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matters depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. Petitioner later brought this pro se petition seeking coram nobis relief, habeas corpus relief, and correction of an allegedly illegal sentence. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to plead grounds for coram nobis relief, failed to file his habeas claim in the circuit court, and did not present evidence of an illegal sentence. View "Antoniello v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asserted that Honorable Marcia Hearnsberger, a circuit judge, had not ruled on a pro se motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order in which Petitioner claimed that a sentencing order required correction of a clerical error, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the request.Petitioner stated that he filed the mandamus action because the circuit court had not ruled on his underlying motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the relief he sought. View "Golden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for declaratory relief, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that Appellees acted in contravention of the statutes pertaining to his parole eligibility.After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and second-degree battery and sentenced to an aggregate term of 264 months' imprisonment. In his petition for declaratory relief Appellant challenged the determination of his parole eligibility by officials with the Arkansas Department of Correction. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the declaratory judgment action. View "Harkuf v. Marony" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was found guilty of theft by receiving and fleeing and sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty-five years' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition Petitioner raised seven claims for relief. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner's claims either were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings or were without merit. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that none of Petitioner's claims established a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of two counts of capital murder and one count of a terroristic act. Petitioner later brought this coram nobis petition alleging that evidence was withheld by the State in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), trial court error, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petition, rendering moot Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. View "Stephenson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and plea of guilty to being a habitual offender, holding that the circuit court did not impose an illegal, fine-only sentence in violation of the habitual offender statute.After accepting Defendant's guilty plea, the circuit court made specific findings for leniency and proclaimed a sentence of only a $10,000 fine and no incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a plain reading of the statute in effect at the time Defendant committed the crime permitted the circuit court to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both; and (2) the circuit court did not err in imposing a fine-only sentence. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on three counts of capital murder and felony-firearm enhancement, for which Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the circuit court’s handling of a jury note and the replaying of his custodial interview during his absence; (3) Defendant's argument that his defense counsel had a conflict of interest due to prior representation of a State’s witness was without merit based on Defendant's on-the-record statement that he wanted counsel to remain his attorney; and (4) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motions to suppress his statements to police. View "Lewondowski v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that there was no error.After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery. The court sentenced Appellant as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. In his habeas corpus petition, Appellant claimed, among other things, that his convictions and sentences were invalid because the prosecutor did not sign the criminal information. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it rejected Appellant's claims for habeas relief. View "Gardner v. Payne" on Justia Law