Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's duplicate petitions for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitions failed to allege a basis for the writ.Approximately forty years ago, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal concerned the circuit court's denial and dismissal of his duplicate pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus. In his petitions, Appellant asserted that his conviction was void because the criminal information was signed by the deputy prosecuting attorney instead of the elected prosecuting attorney. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err. View "Lovelace v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in rejecting Appellant's petition.Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his aggravated robbery convictions were invalid because the criminal statutes under which he was convicted were unconstitutional. The circuit court rejected Appellant's argument. On appeal, Appellant further argued that the state habeas corpus statute is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the aggravated robbery statute does not violate the Arkansas Constitution; and (2) Appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the habeas corpus statute is waived because it was not raised or ruled on below. View "Halfacre v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault and sentence of life imprisonment plus forty years, holding that the circuit court erred in overruling Defendant's objection when an investigator testified that she found the allegations of sexual abuse were true and that the victims were "very credible."On appeal, the State conceded that the circuit court erred in admitting the investigator's testimony about the victims' credibility. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the error was harmless. The Supreme Court held that where the victims' testimony was the only evidence supporting conviction it cannot be said that the circuit court's error in admitting the testimony was slight. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "Beard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court disqualifying district judge Adam Weeks from the ballot for the judicial office of the Third Judicial District, Division Three, Circuit Judge in the March 3, 2020 election, holding that a conviction under Ark. Code Ann. 27-14-306 does not require the finder of fact to find, or the defendant to admit, an act of deceit, fraud, or false statement.The circuit court removed Weeks' name from the ballot because he was previously convicted for violating the "fictitious tags" statute, section 27-14-306. At issue was whether the statute constitutes a misdemeanor offense in which the finder of fact was required to find an act of deceit, fraud, or false statement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a violation of section 27-14-306 did not require a finding of admission of deceit, fraud, or false statement, and therefore, Weeks was eligible to run for public office. View "Weeks v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition.In dismissing Appellant's petition the circuit court found that the petition was defective because Appellant had failed to attach a copy of his judgment and commitment order or provide a legal excuse for the omission and, further, that Petitioner's claim was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that because Appellant's habeas petition failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103(b) the circuit court properly dismissed the petition. View "Muhammad v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that he was being illegally detained and entitled to issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to effect his release from custody.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court of appeals affirmed. After Petitioner unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief he filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county where he was incarcerated. Petitioner's ground for the writ was that, subsequent to his trial, the trial judge was accused of failing to abide by certain ethical and legal standards and was thus shown to be unqualified to preside as a judge. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not state a ground upon which the writ could issue. View "Stalnaker v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from the Jefferson County Circuit Court's denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101 to -123, holding that a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Jefferson County Circuit Court could not be returned because Appellant was no longer within its jurisdiction.Appellant, who was incarcerated in Jefferson County when he filed his petition, lodged an appeal from its denial and was later transferred to a prison facility in Lincoln County. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding that although Appellant was incarcerated in Jefferson County when he filed the habeas petition and proceeded with his appeal, the Jefferson County Circuit Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "Reed v. Straughn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for rape, third-degree domestic battery, and other convictions, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony and that Defendant's remaining arguments were not preserved.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in allowing a witness to testify that she had also been raped by Defendant and that the trial court's exclusion of sexually explicit text messages and photographs of the witness, which were located on her phone, violated the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness's testimony as independently relevant evidence proving Defendant's intent, motive, or plan was more probable than without the introduction of her testimony; and (2) Defendant's remaining arguments were not preserved. View "Fowlkes v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to recall the mandate to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's allegations failed to raise cognizable grounds for coram nobis relief or to recall the mandate.Petitioner was convicted of burglary, attempted burglary, and revocation of suspended sentences and subsequently convicted of rape, kidnapping, and residential burglary. Petitioner later filed his petition seeking coram nobis relief, alleging that both his trial and his direct appeal were defective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims were not grounds for the writ. View "McCullough v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition and amended petition to correct an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant did not establish that his sentence was illegal.Appellant plead guilty to capital murder, first-degree terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. In this petition, Appellant argued that his sentence of life without parole was (1) illegal on its face because Ark. Code Ann. 16-89-108(b) provides that in cases in which the death penalty has been waived punishment could not be fixed at more than life imprisonment, and (2) was facially illegal because he signed the plea agreement before he entered his guilty plea but he did not initial each item on the agreement. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentence was a legal sentence. View "Millsap v. State" on Justia Law