Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusions of the trial court denying Petitioner's petition and amended petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Petitioner was convicted of rape and second-degree sexual assault. In his petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner claimed that his trial attorneys failed to render effective assistance. The trial court addressed some but not all claims brought by Petitioner and found them to be within merit under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner waived appellate review of most of his claims; and (2) as to the remaining claims, the trial court did not err in finding them to be without merit. View "Lowery 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 and for clarification of certain dates in which Petitioner claimed that the State committed a Brady violation and that Petitioner was being denied due process of law and being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, holding that none of Petitioner's claims established a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. After an unsuccessful appeal, Petitioner brought this petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to coram nobis relief. View "Ashley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to issuance of the writ.Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him, that he was searched and arrested illegally, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas proceedings. View "Wolfe v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's postconviction petition filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape and one count of terroristic threatening. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed amended petition under Rule 37 alleging six grounds for relief. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of Defendant's expert witness. View "Joyner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal brought by the State pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3 arguing that the circuit court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress medical records obtained through a prosecutor's subpoena, holding that the appeal was not a proper State appeal under Rule 3.The State charged Defendant with one count of negligent homicide after he rear-ended a vehicle, causing an accident that killed a minor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a urine sample collected at the hospital and medical records that were obtained by the State, which included the results of a blood test taken as part of Defendant's medical treatment. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, and the State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State did not have a proper basis to appeal. View "State v. Kirchner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree assault and sentencing him to thirty days in jail, holding that Defendant failed to perfect his appeal from district court to circuit court, and therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.On the thirty-ninth day from the district court judgment convicting him of first-degree assault, Defendant's attorney filed an affidavit with the circuit court stating that Defendant had filed a notice of appeal in the district court. The circuit court found Defendant guilty of second-degree assault. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that he failed to perfect his appeal from the district court to the circuit court because he failed timely to file the record or a proper affidavit containing certain facts for the circuit court to acquire jurisdiction under Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(d). The Supreme Court agreed and reinstated the district court judgment, holding that an insufficient affidavit filed under rule 36(d) is a jurisdictional impairment to an appeal from a criminal conviction from district court to circuit court. View "Collins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to issuance of the writ.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him in excess of the alleged mandatory maximum determinate of forty years' imprisonment for first-degree murder. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was sentenced within the permitted statutory range for first-degree murder he failed to state a claim for issuance of the writ. View "McArty v. Payne" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court held that Defendant was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal and that Defendant was indigent.Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault on a family member and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Due to conflicts between the allegations set forth in Defendant's motion for belated appeal and the affidavit filed by his trial counsel, the circuit court remanded the case for findings of fact with regard to whether Defendant had waived his right to an appeal and whether he was entitled to proceed as a pauper. After reviewing the record on remand the Supreme Court granted the motion for belated appeal and granted in forma pauperis status, holding that Defendant was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal and that he was indigent. View "Marek v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to allege cognizable grounds for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to forty years in prison. The case was reversed, and therefore, the prosecutor added a habitual-offender charge to the information. After a retrial, the jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder and sentenced him to sixty years' imprisonment due to his habitual-offender status. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging prosecutorial misconduct and that his sentence was illegal. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims did not fall within the purview of coram nobis relief. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the court did not err by denying the petition without a hearing.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his Rule 37 petition, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on second-degree murder. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in summarily denying Appellant's Rule 37 petition. View "Riley v. State" on Justia Law