Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that, as to the suspended imposition of sentences for two counts of first-degree endangerment of a minor, both were statutorily unauthorized and facially illegal.Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of five felony counts and sentenced as a habitual offender. In his petition to correct an illegal sentence, Defendant argued that his sentences were illegal for several reasons. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant's claims were untimely and improper. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's finding that Defendant's claim constitute an untimely petition challenging the manner in which his sentences were imposed; and (2) reversed and remanded with regard to the suspended imposition of sentences for the endangerment of a minor counts because the suspensions were imposed consecutively, one exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class D felony, and both were statutorily unauthorized and facially illegal. View "Muhammad v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's petition for relief from an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifty-three years' imprisonment. Defendant later filed a petition for relief from an illegal sentence alleging that his sentence was illegal on four grounds. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding (1) Defendant's sentence was not facially illegal in that it fell below the statutory maximum, and (2) the remaining allegations were untimely and otherwise without factual support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant sentence was within the maximum prescribed sentence and was legal on its face; and (2) Defendant's remaining allegations were unavailing. View "Smith 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 Petitioner failed to establish that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).Appellant was convicted of second-degree battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 660 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. In his petition for writ of error coram nobis Appellant alleged that the State committed a Brady violation by withholding the criminal history of two primary witnesses at his trial. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate the prejudice prong of a Brady claim. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition, holding that Appellant filed his petition in the wrong county.A Phillips County jury convicted Appellant of sexual assault in he first degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed this petition in Phillips County for writ of mandamus/prohibition, alleging that Appellees miscalculated his parole eligibility by requiring that he serve 100 percent of his sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609(b)(1). The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where neither the director nor keeper of the records of the Arkansas Department of Correction was located in Phillips County, Appellant was not entitled to relief in the Phillips County Circuit Court. View "Jenkins v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's claims fell outside the purview of habeas relief.Appellant was convicted of capital murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was actually innocent and that insufficient evidence supported his capital murder conviction. The circuit court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Appellant was not challenging the facial validity of his life sentence or the jurisdiction of the circuit court to enter the judgment of conviction, Appellant was not entitled to habeas relief. View "Peeler 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 abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's petition.Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to two 120-month terms of imprisonment, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of 240 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his consecutive sentences were illegal because the trial court abrogated the jury's recommendation for concurrent sentences. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's argument that the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences when the jury recommended concurrent sentences was without merit. View "Thompson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no ground on which the writ could issue.Appellants was convicted of rape and fourth-degree sexual assault. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. Appellant later brought this action raising five claims for habeas relief, including claims that he was tried in violation of his right to a speedy trial. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims fell outside the purview of habeas relief. View "Wade v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court resentencing Appellant to a term of life imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's resentencing motion, permanent-incorrigibility instruction, or witness testimony.Appellant was sixteen years old when he committed the crime that led to his conviction for capital murder. Appellant received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was decided, Appellant's sentence was vacated. On remand, the circuit court resentenced Appellant to a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Appellant's "Motion to Determine the Appropriate Procedure and Sentencing Range for Resentencing"; (2) did not abuse its discretion in refusing Appellant's permanent-incorrigibility jury instruction; and (3) did not err in sustaining the State's objection to a witness's testimony comparing Appellant's rehabilitation to that of other inmates. View "Elliott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's successive pro se petition requesting or obtaining an authorization order for leave to amend and supplement records pursuant to Act 1780, codified at Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was found guilty of rape, kidnapping, robbery, and other offenses. In the instant petition, Appellant made three claims for relief, including a claim seeking testing of evidence from his criminal case. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not rebut the presumption against timeliness, failed to state facts that would entitle him to scientific testing, and raised successive claims. View "Hooper v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Supreme Court to compel the circuit court to conduct a hearing on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to issuance of the writ.Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. Petitioner later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State withheld certain evidence held by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. Petitioner then brought this petition asking that the circuit court be compelled to conduct a hearing on his habeas petition. The Supreme Court denied the writ, noting that a hearing is not required on a habeas petition. View "Khalifa v. State" on Justia Law