Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant William Hale was convicted of internet stalking and was sentenced to 276 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutor misconduct. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court, holding (1) Appellant's series of allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were entirely conclusory in nature in that there was no factual substantiation to demonstrate how Appellant's counsel specifically prejudiced the defense; and (2) Appellant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not cognizable in a petition for postconviction relief.

Appellant Michael Gilliland was convicted for rape and sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied. At issue on appeal was whether Appellant filed his petition within sixty days of the date that the mandate issued in accordance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). The Supreme Court (1) remanded the case for findings of fact concerning the date of tender of the petition as the Court could not ascertain the actual date of tender of the petition in this case; and (2) declared the State's motion for extension of time to file its brief in conjunction with its motion to dismiss moot.

Appellant, a legal, permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to one count of maintaining a drug premise. Later, Appellant was placed in a removal proceeding in immigration court. Appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that his trial counsel never informed him of the possible adverse immigration consequences that could result if he pled guilty to the charge. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition, finding that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a petition for postconviction relief and did not provide a basis for coram-nobis relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding.

Petitioner Sanders Carter was convicted on charges of rape, aggravated robbery, and burglary. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged that conviction through a number of different proceedings for various postconviction remedies, which failed. In the instant action, Petitioner brought a Petition before the Supreme Court requesting that it reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that evidence was withheld from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) if the evidence in this case was mislabeled as asserted, Petitioner had identified a hidden error of fact that may be cognizable in a proceeding for he writ, but (2) Petitioner did not demonstrate that the error would have been sufficient to prevent rendition of the judgment.

Appellant Matthew Barnett, an inmate incarcerated in a Department of Correction facility in Lee County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lee County circuit court. The court denied the petition. Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion for leave to file a supplemental reply brief on appeal. After the motion was filed, Appellant was released from custody and was living in Pulaski County. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot because Appellant was no longer within the jurisdiction of the circuit court in which he filed his petition.

Appellant Joseph Akin entered a negotiated guilty plea to a charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he did not enter the guilty plea voluntarily. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant contended that the circuit court's erroneous denial of his motion to suppress contraband discovered during a search after a traffic stop placed him in an untenable position that compelled him to plead guilty, thereby rendering his plea involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding that Appellant's argument was without merit.

Petitioner Bobby Threadford was found guilty of aggravated robbery, residential burglary, fleeing, second-degree forgery, and two counts of theft of property. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the felony information in his case was flawed and that he should not have been found to be a habitual offender. The circuit court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it did not raise an issue cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Petitioner then filed a motion that referred to a writ of prohibition, which the Supreme Court treated as a motion for belated appeal. The Court denied the motion, holding that the petition did not demonstrate that the trial court was without jurisdiction in this case and that Appellant's nonjurisdictional challenges to the sufficiency of the information were not cognizable as grounds for a writ of habeas corpus.

In this criminal case, the State brought an appeal of a circuit court orer that granted Appellee Kenneth Harrison a new trial on Appellee's petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the order because the record did not demonstrate jurisdiction by the trial court in that the record did not contain a timely filed postconviction relief petition. Before the Supreme Court was Appellee's motion for reconsideration of that decision. The Court (1) remanded to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of whether there was a timely petition for postconviction relief filed in this case; and (2) determined that once the findings were returned, Appellee's motion for reconsideration would be considered.

After a jury trial, Appellant Wardell Newsome was found guilty of first-degree murder. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that defense counsel's decision not to call a firearms expert who could have tested and compared shell casings found at the crime scene following the murder with a handgun that was recovered six months later was a strategic one and not an omission resulting in effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the circuit court properly denied Appellant's petition for postconviction relief where counsel's potential errors in failing to pursue information regarding a potential eyewitness who could have provided exculpatory testimony did not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.

Appellant James Montgomery was convicted of rape of his six-year-old adopted granddaughter and was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, raising several allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in denying Appellant's petition without first holding a hearing where Appellant's trial counsel failed to object to testimony asserting the credibility of the accuser; (2) the circuit court erred in not considering Appellant's argument that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to improper testimony about patterns of behavior of child-sexual-abuse victims and finding that Appellant's objection to the testimony was not supported by specific facts; and (3) it was error for the circuit court to deny relief without first holding a hearing on Appellant's argument that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call Appellant's son as a witness at trial.