Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was found guilty of rape by a jury in the circuit court and was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed as modified. Appellant's subsequent petition for postconviction relief was denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending (1) he had new scientific evidence to prove his innocence, (2) his trial attorney was ineffective, (3) he was denied due process of law by trial errors and the failure of the prosecution to comply with discovery requests and the reliance by the prosecution on perjured testimony to gain the conviction, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion related to the appeal moot, holding that because Appellant failed to state cognizable claims, he did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Girley v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted for possession with intent to sell/deliver and sentenced to 144 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the matter, holding that Appellant's original sentence to probation was an illegal sentence because "probation was not an authorized disposition for a Class Y felony." The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals' opinion, and affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the circuit court's findings were not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; and (2) although probation is not available for Class Y felonies, probation is a permitted disposition for certain Class Y drug offenses after the General Assembly's enactment of Act 192 of 1993. View "Crouse v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed an order of the circuit court convicting him of capital murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole. For reversal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement given to police. Specifically, Appellant contended that his statement should be suppressed because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during his interview with police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's argument failed because his statement was never introduced into evidence at trial, and therefore, Appellant failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the non-use of those statements. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

Judgment was entered reflecting that Petitioner had entered a plea of guilty to three felony offenses. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that she was misled and deceived into accepting a plea agreement in that she was unaware of the amount of time that she would be required to serve before becoming eligible for parole. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that because Petitioner did not contend that her plea was conditional or that it otherwise met any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal, she did not meet her burden of establishing that she was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal. View "Owens v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted for criminal offenses and incarcerated. Petitioner later filed three petitions for postconviction relief, which were denied by the circuit court. Petitioner did not timely file a notice of appeal from the court's orders disposing of the petitions. Thereafter, Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that the court's orders did not reach him until six days after the orders had been entered, and because he was functionally illiterate, he was forced to rely on a "jailhouse lawyer" for legal advice and assistance. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to perfect his appeal in a timely manner. View "Neely v. State" on Justia Law

In 1992, Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child and placed on ten years probation. After he relocated to Arkansas in 2007, Appellant was required to register as a sex offender. Appellant complied with this requirement and was assessed as a Level 1 sex offender. In 2011, Appellant filed an application with the circuit court to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-919. The circuit court denied Appellant's application as premature. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) a probationer may apply to terminate his or her obligation to register as a sex offender fifteen years after being placed on probation; and (2) further, that probationer is entitled to relief upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has not been adjudicated of a sex offense during that fifteen-year-time period and he or she is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. View "Harrell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted by a circuit court jury of five counts of capital murder, two counts of aggravated residential burglary, and four counts of theft of property. Appellant was sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment without parole and two additional life sentences plus ninety years. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's sentences and convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss a juror, despite the juror's informing the court he could not be fair to Appellant, and thus, Appellant was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury. View "Conway v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a certain person. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 360 months' imprisonment. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied and dismissed. No appeal was taken, and Petition instead sought a writ of certiorari requesting leave to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court treated the petition as a motion for belated appeal. The Court denied the appeal, holding that, under the circumstances, Petitioner did not establish good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Tolefree v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property with a sentence enhancement for use of a firearm in commission of the offenses. The court of appeals affirmed. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed a verified petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the trial court's order as required by Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(a)(4). Before the Supreme Court was Petitioner's motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the court's order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner's unsubstantiated allegations clearly fell short of establishing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial, and accordingly, there was no good cause to permit an appeal from the order that denied postconviction relief. View "Crain v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and following too close. Appellant appealed his conviction for DWI, arguing that the circuit court erred in allowing testimony regarding the administration and results of his breathalyzer test because the person who calibrated the machine was not made available to testify, which violated Appellant's Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding (1) calibration records of a breathalyzer machine are not testimonial, and thus the admission of those records without the testimony of the person who performed the calibration does not violate the Confrontation Clause; and (2) Appellant was required to subpoena the person who performed the calibration if he wished to cross-examine that person. View "Chambers v. State" on Justia Law