Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) miscalculated his parole eligibility, holding that the circuit court failed to address Appellant's primary claim that the ADC erred in applying a 2007 amended version of Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-120(e) requiring defendants sentenced to a firearm enhancement to serve seventy percent of the enhanced sentence.Defendant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery and an additional fifteen years' imprisonment for use of a firearm in the robbery pursuant to section 16-90-120. In dismissing Appellant's mandamus petition, the circuit court agreed with the State's argument that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-911(a)(1)(c) authorized the ADC to require Appellant to serve seventy percent of his aggregate sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required for the circuit court to address whether the seventy-percent requirement was applicable to the fifteen-year sentence enhancement and to address the language found in the amendment to section 16-90-120. View "Rogers v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying and dismissing the petition on the basis that issues surrounding parole eligibility are not cognizable in habeas proceedings.Appellant appeared before the parole board on September 5, 2019 and was denied parole for two years. The parole board affirmed the two-year denial. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant argued that the parole board's actions were illegal and in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-615. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing probable cause that he was detained without lawful authority. View "Cervantes v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the grounds raised in Appellant's petition were not grounds for habeas relief.Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, first-degree terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant later petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that none of the allegations were cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying habeas relief on Appellant's claims. View "Millsap v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it treated the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 petition and denied it because the grounds raised in the petition were distinctly covered by that Rule.Appellant pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 300 months' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition, Appellant argued that his counsel conspired with the prosecutor to mislead him with respect to the sentences he received for his guilty pleas and that his trial counsel acted in bad faith. The circuit court treated the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 and denied it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's ruling that Defendant's allegations should have been raised in a timely petition under Rule 37.1 was a correct statement of law. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

Here, the Supreme Court announced new protocols to maintain the safety of jurors, litigants, attorneys, court personnel and the public in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Court suspended until January 15, 2021 jury trials that have not begun. The Court, however, urged that judges continue to move cases forward, either through the use of technology by virtual or telephonic hearings or through in-person hearings that meet the Arkansas Department of Health's criteria for safe gatherings. The Court held that any delay for speedy-trial purposes due to precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic shall presumptively constitute good cause under Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3(h) and shall constitute an excluded period for speedy-trial purposes. View "In Response To The COVID-19 Pandemic" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the chief justice had the constitutional authority to appoint a special judge, who had the jurisdiction and authority to preside over Petitioner's case.Two days before Petitioner's scheduled trial, Chief Justice Hannah appointed Honorable Ted Capeheart to preside in the place of an elected circuit court judge who had suddenly fallen ill. Twice, Petitioner filed habeas petitions alleging that Judge Capeheart lacked authority to preside over his case. The circuit court denied both petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Chief Justice had the constitutional authority to appoint Judge Capeheart, who consequently had the jurisdiction and authority to preside over Petitioner's case. View "Russell v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's claim for habeas relief but remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that Petitioner's sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for his offenses.In his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus Petitioner alleged that his convictions for arson and first-degree battery are void because he did not plead guilty to either offense and that his sentence for first-degree murder exceeded the length provided in the sentencing guidelines. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding (1) Petitioner's claims failed to demonstrate that he was illegally detained; but (2) the suspended imposition of sentences in connection with Petitioner's convictions for first-degree murder and battery exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses, and therefore, resentencing was necessary. View "Waller v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that there were no grounds stated on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued.Defendant was convicted of two counts of negligent homicide, leaving the scene of an accident involving injury or death, driving on a suspended license, and driving while intoxicated. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising several allegations. The Supreme Court found that Defendant's allegations did not establish probable cause for issuance of the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to issuance of the writ. View "Rabion v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of capital murder, holding that the trial court did not err when it did not bring jurors into open court after they posed a question during deliberations.Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. For his sole point on appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it did not bring the jurors into open court after they posed a question during deliberations. The State conceded that the court violated Ark. Code Ann. 16-89-125(e) by not bringing the jury into open court when it asked a question. The Supreme Court held that because there was no risk of misinformation being communicated to the jury the State met its burden of overcoming the presumption of prejudice. View "Combs v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1977), to second-degree sexual assault. In his coram nobis petition, Defendant argued that his guilty plea was coerced. The trial court denied issuance of the writ. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the trial court did not clearly err when it gave greater weight to the testimony of Defendant's counsel and did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's petition for coram nobis relief. View "Flow v. State" on Justia Law