Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court denying without a hearing Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that because the circuit court failed to make written findings in accordance with Rule 37.3(a), the case must be remanded to the circuit court for written findings in compliance with Rule 37.3(a).Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for first-degree murder and an additional fifteen years’ imprisonment for possession for a firearm. In his petition for postconviction relief, Appellant argued that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present the proper jury instructions on justification and extreme emotional disturbance manslaughter. The circuit court denied relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s claim regarding the jury instruction on justification; and (2) the circuit court failed to comply with the dictates of Rule 37 as to Appellant’s claim regarding the jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance manslaughter, and the case must be remanded for entry of findings with respect to this claim. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting a preliminary inunction requested by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Arkansas taxpayers, holding that Geoffrey Herweg was ineligible to hold the appointed position of Jacksonville police chief because of his 2002 Texas misdemeanor conviction.In 2002, Herweg pleaded guilty to the offense of giving a false report to a police officer in a Texas court. In 2017, Herweg was appointed as the City of Jacksonville’s new police chief. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, illegal exaction, and emergency temporary restraining order alleging that Herweg was ineligible to hold the office of police chief. The circuit court granted a preliminary injunction in Plaintiff’s favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing in this action and presented a justiciable controversy; (2) article 5, section 9 of the Arkansas Constitution applies to both elected and appointed officials; (3) the office of chief of police constitutes an “office of trust” pursuant to article 5, section 9; (4) Herweg’s Texas conviction disqualified him from holding the office of the City’s police chief; and (5) the circuit court properly found that irreparable harm would result of Herweg were to remain in office in violation of article 5, section 9. View "City of Jacksonville v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, issued the writ, and remanded this case to the sentencing court, holding that Appellant’s judgment-and-commitment orders incorrectly stated that he was ineligible for parole.Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses he committed as a juvenile. In his habeas petition Appellant alleged that one of his sentences of sixty years’ imprisonment exceeded his life expectancy without the opportunity for parole, resulting in a de facto life sentence, in violation of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). The Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was parole eligible, and therefore, his sentence did not violate Graham; but (2) Appellant’s judgment-and-commitment orders incorrectly stated that his was ineligible for parole pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609, which did not apply to Appellant. View "Benson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for two counts of rape and sentences of life plus forty years’ imprisonment, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did commit prejudicial error in denying Appellant’s motion in liming seeking to preclude reference to the prosecuting witnesses as “victims”; and (3) Appellant failed to preserve for appeal his arguments that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during voir dire and abused its discretion in restricting his cross-examination of a certain witness. View "Friday v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis and declined to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court or recall the mandate in Petitioner’s appeal but granted a part of Petitioner’s requested relief by holding that the judgment was void to the extent that it imposed a sentence for the charge of kidnapping.Petitioner argued that his conviction for kidnapping was invalid and that the sentence on that conviction was an illegal sentence that the trial court lacked the authority to impose. The Supreme Court held (1) Petitioner’s sentence for kidnapping was illegal and void because he was sentenced for both kidnapping and capital murder; and (2) Petitioner failed to state a basis that would justify coram nobis proceedings in the trial court or to show a need for resentencing proceedings. View "Hallman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial and dismissal of Appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief.Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to kidnapping and second-degree murder for an aggregate sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition seeking a writ of coram nobis, alleging a Brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the evidence that was allegedly suppressed was sufficient to alter the outcome of the trial; and (2) there was no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance were not cognizable. View "Osburn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of manslaughter after a third trial and remanded this case for a new trial, holding that Defendant should have been permitted to argue that he believed he was acting in self-defense and to have a jury instruction on that point.Defendant was charged with manslaughter. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by not giving his proffered jury instruction on justification and by denying him his request to argue that he believed he was acting in self-defense. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that a justification such as self-defense is considered an element of the offense and, once raised, must be disproved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Schnarr v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the order of the circuit court denying Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordering the Arkansas Department of Correction to withhold the applicable filing fee from Appellant's inmate account, holding (1) there was no error in including Appellant’s Veterans’ Administration disability benefits in determining Appellant’s indigency status pursuant to federal law; but (2) applicable federal law prohibits the circuit court from ordering that the filing fee be paid from Appellant’s trust account where the account proceeds are derived entirely from Appellant’s disability benefits. View "Halfacre v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s motion asking the Court to recall its mandate in his direct appeal affirming his conviction for capital murder and death sentence, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate a breakdown in the appellate process to justify the recall of the direct-appeal mandate.Appellant filed a motion to recall the mandate and stay his execution, arguing that he did not receive the minimum due-process requirements set forth in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), because the Court had incorrectly interpreted and applied Ake, thus denying him access to an independent mental health expert to assist in his defense. The Supreme Court denied Appellant’s motion and lifted the stay of his execution, holding that there was no breakdown in the appellate process that would warrant recalling the mandate. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of capital murder and life sentence without the possibility of parole as required by law, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to the crime to testify and, in the alternative, in denying his motion for a continuance. Defendant argued specifically that the trial court erred as regards this issue due to the relatively late disclosure of the State’s intent to have the witness testify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the witness to testify or by denying Defendant’s request for a continuance. View "Duncan v. State" on Justia Law