Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner’s claims did not establish a ground for the writ.This was the second coram nobis petition filed by Petitioner. In the instant petition, Petitioner argued that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose to the defense a serology report and the victim’s death certificate. The Supreme Court denied the petition after concluding that the crux of Petitioner’s claim of a Brady violation was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that a Brady violation occurred in his trial. View "Buchanan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s writ of mandamus seeking to order the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney to authorize the release of information and evidence from Appellant’s criminal case from the Arkansas Crime Lab, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the writ.On appeal, Appellant argued that he was entitled to full access to the records and information he sought under Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-312 and that the statute obligated the prosecuting attorney to release the information. The Supreme Court held that issuance of the writ of mandamus was not appropriate because (1) the duty of the prosecuting attorney to disclose is mandatory upon the attorney’s discovery that evidence retained by the lab “tends to negate the guilt” or would “tend to reduce the punishment” of the defendant; and (2) the prosecuting attorney’s duty in this case was not ministerial, and Appellant failed to establish a clear and certain right to the relief sought. View "Linell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s fourth petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court in his criminal case, holding that the petition was an abuse of the writ and that Petitioner’s related motions were therefore moot.The Supreme Court dismissed or denied Petitioner’s first three coram nobis petitions. The grounds raised by Petitioner in his fourth petition were issues already raised in Petitioner’s three prior petitions for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to offer facts sufficient to warrant granting leave to proceed in the trial court for the writ. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and declared moot Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief, holding that the claims Appellant raised were not grounds for the writ.In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that the writ should issue on the ground that he was unlawfully detained. The Supreme Court held that the assertions raised by Appellant as grounds for the writ either constituted a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction or did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court, and therefore, Appellant failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s third petition requesting the Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that relief was not warranted where Petitioner reasserted the same grounds as in his previous petition but without providing additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ.In his second coram nobis petition, Petitioner raised claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel and withheld evidence and his lack of representation for those claims. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his proposed attacks on the judgment were meritorious and therefore declined to permit a renewal of Petitioner’s application for permission to proceed with a coram nobis petition. View "Mosley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal of a circuit court order that dismissed his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus after treating the motion as a motion for rule on clerk, holding that it was clear that Appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal went forward.In his habeas petition, Appellant made several contentions, including that the judgment in his case was illegal on its face and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the habeas court’s denial of his petition, holding that Appellant’s arguments did not establish a ground for the writ. View "Davis v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that charging Appellant in an amendment to the information originally filed in his brother’s case did not deprive the trial court of either subject-matter or personal jurisdiction.Appellant was not personally charged in an original felony information, but, rather, Appellant’s name was added to an amendment to the felony information that originally charged only his brother with the offenses of which Appellant was later convicted. As grounds for issuance of the writ, Appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment of conviction because he was charged in an amendment to the felony information that charged his brother. The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Appellant’s petition, holding that charging Appellant in an amendment to the information charging his brother did not deprive the trial court of either subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. View "Anderson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the petition was without merit.As grounds for issuance of the writ, Petitioner alleged that the prosecution withheld evidence that two men pleaded guilty to the murder for which Petitioner had been convicted. The Supreme Court held that because the transcript attached to Petitioner’s coram nobis petition did not contain facts that would have prevented the rendition of the guilty verdict but, rather, confirmed Petitioner’s guilt and because the guilty plea at issue occurred six years after Petitioner was tried for capital murder, Petitioner was not entitled to coram nobis relief. View "Dednam 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 demonstrate in the petition that the writ should issue.In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner asserted that the prosecution withheld material evidence during the trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that his accomplice confessed by pleading guilty. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claim of a Brady violation; and (2) the nature of Petitioner’s second argument failed to establish a ground for issuance of the writ. View "Cunningham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that none of Appellant’s claims merited postconviction relief under Rule 37.Appellant was convicted of drug-related charges. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant then filed his Rule 37 petition, alleging that his attorney provided ineffective assistance and trial error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying relief; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for representation in his Rule 37 proceedings. View "Lane v. State" on Justia Law