Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Barry Aaron received two life sentences for his convictions on charges of kidnapping and rape. Appellant subsequently filed two pro se motions referencing an action under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208, or Act 1780. The trial court denied the motions, and Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to consolidate the two appeals. The Court declared the motion moot and dismissed the appeals, holding that relief under the Act was foreclosed to Appellant on the basis that he pursued a defense based upon a tactical decision not to have certain evidence disclosed, and therefore, it was clear that Appellant could not prevail on appeal of either of the orders that denied the motions. View "Aaron v. State" on Justia Law

After receiving complaints of narcotic activity, patrol officers began to watch an area around a trailer. An officer opened three trash bags from a nearby dumpster to investigate the names of the adults living in the trailer and discovered items relating to methamphetamine as well as fresh baby diapers. After obtaining a search warrant, which included a justification for nighttime clause because the search would be executed after 8 p.m., the officers discovered methamphetmine being manufactured in the bathroom while three small children were asleep inside the trailer. The circuit court Defendant Mark Tyson's motion to suppress, finding that none of the nighttime-search conditions in Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.2(c) applied to the search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting Tyson's motion to suppress where (1) the facts did not provide a basis for reasonable cause for a nighttime search pursuant to Rule 13.2; but (2) the executing officers operated in good faith under U.S. v. Leon, and therefore, the exception to the Court's criminal rules applied to the defective search and seizure. View "State v. Tyson" on Justia Law

This interlocutory appeal stemmed from the circuit court's disqualification of Reggie Koch as counsel for appellants, Ae Samontry and Pornpiemon Phouangmany. Appellants were charged with prostitution and promoting prostitution. Jerry Richard, Samontry's ex-husband, was also charged with promoting prostitution. Richard was represented by Koch. Samontry and Phouangmany were found guilty as charged, and Richard was acquitted of all charges. Samontry and Phouangmany then retained Koch as their attorney and appealed their convictions to the circuit court. The circuit court subsequently granted the State's motion to disqualify Koch as counsel for Appellants based on his previous representation of a material witness, Richard, in the matter. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the appeal with respect to Samontry, as there was no order contained in the record of this interlocutory appeal disqualifying Koch as counsel for Samontry; and (2) reversed Koch's disqualification as counsel for Phouangmany, as the State failed to meet its burden of proof to support Koch's disqualification in Phouangmany's case. View "Samontry v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Yvonne Dockery pled no contest to one count of theft pursuant to a negotiated plea. On October 26, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw her no-contest plea. On October 30, the circuit court denied the motion after finding that sentencing had taken place prior to the filing of the motion and the court had lost jurisdiction to set aside the plea. Also on October 30, the court entered a judgment-and-commitment order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in determining whether it had jurisdiction to entertain Appellant's motion where the commitment order was not filed with the circuit clerk until four days after Appellant had filed her motion. Remanded. View "Dockery v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Billy Culbertson, who was incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Lee County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lee County circuit court. The petition pertained to three criminal judgments on charges to which Appellant had entered pleas of guilty. Appellant argued that he was innocent of the offenses and that he was entitled to be released on a writ of habeas corpus on a number of grounds. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to file a belated brief on appeal. The Court declared the motion moot and denied the appeal, as Appellant failed to establish that the writ should issue. View "Culbertson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Corey Turner was convicted, by way of an entry of a negotiated guilty plea in circuit court, on charges of delivery of hydrocodone and first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor. Appellant subsequently filed a petition and amended petition to correct a sentence. The trial court denied the petitions. Before the Supreme Court were two motions filed by Appellant relating to his appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that the only claim in Appellant's petition that alleged a facially invalid sentence nevertheless failed to state a claim sufficient to support relief under the sentence, and therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to modify the sentence. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with capital murder and two counts of aggravated assault. Appellant was convicted of all three charges and sentenced to death on the murder charge. Thereafter, Appellant filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, as well as an amended petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to (1) interview or call Appellant's son as a mitigation witness during sentencing; (2) object to the prosecutor's statements in closing argument; (3) object to the State's admission of an aggravator that Appellant had committed a prior violent felony; (4) object to the admission of written victim-impact statements; (5) conduct voir dire on the issue of race; and (6) sufficiently explain his right to present uncomplimentary evidence about the victim during the penalty phase where, in support of this claim, Appellant presented only conclusory allegations. View "Springs v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Schniepp pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and maintaining a drug premises. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence, due-process, illegal-seizure, and severity-of-the-sentence arguments were subject to dismissal as being noncognizable due to Appellant's guilty plea; and (2) Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were procedurally barred from the Court's review, as the circuit court did not provide a ruling on those issues. View "Schniepp v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Perry entered a plea of guilty to aggravated residential burglary, aggravated robbery, battery in the second degree, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft of property, and misdemeanor interference with emergency communication. Appellant timely filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion related to the appeal. The Court declared the motion moot and dismissed the appeal, holding (1) because the allegations raised in the petition were without factual substantiation to support them, Appellant did not establish that he was prejudiced; and (2) Appellant's additional claims were not cognizable in a postconviction relief proceeding. View "Perry v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Loggins was found guilty by a jury of several drug-related crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming that a third-party confession had become available to him that established information not available at trial, which would have resulted in a reasonable probability that the judgment would not have been rendered if the information had been brought out at trial. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) the information did not negate the evidence adduced at trial; and (2) Petitioner's claims were not grounds for coram-nobis relief, as assertions of a third-party confession after a judgment is affirmed are properly addressed to the executive branch in a clemency proceeding. View "Loggins v. State" on Justia Law