Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this death-penalty case, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request to recall the mandate for his resentencing in Ward v. State, 1 S.W.3d 1, 3 (1998) (Ward III), holding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for the Court to recall the mandate in Petitioner’s resentencing.After the governor set Petitioner’s execution date, Petitioner filed a motion to recall the mandate in this matter and stay of execution until the United States Court issued its opinion in McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct 1790 (2017). Petitioner argued that McWilliams had a direct impact on his claim pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), and that the Court should overrule precedent holding that a competency evaluation at the Arkansas State Hospital satisfies Ake. The Supreme Court granted the stay of execution, took the motion as a case, and then denied Petitioner’s motion, holding (1) McWilliams did not develop new law or change the standard pursuant to Ake; and (2) based on law-of-the-case doctrine, Petitioner’s arguments provided no basis for granting his motion to recall the mandate in his resentencing. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion seeking to proceed with the appeal of an order that dismissed his pro se petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief, holding that the order Petitioner sought to appeal from was not a final, appealable order.The Supreme Court held that because Petitioner was allowed under the procedural rules to refile his claim after his petition had been dismissed, the order he would appeal was not a final, appealable order, and therefore, the Supreme Court did not have appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for belated appeal of the order. View "McCullough v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s pro se petition and amended petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief.In his petition and amended petition, Appellant argued that his sentences for first-degree battery and criminal mischief were illegal on multiple grounds. The trial court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 because he did not establish the his sentences were illegal on their face and that, to the extent Appellant raised claims pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, his claims were untimely and successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decision denying relief was not clearly erroneous because Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his sentences were illegal. View "Swift v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Appellant’s petition failed to state a basis for relief.The trial court denied Appellant’s petition to correct an illegal sentence on multiple grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that because Appellant did not plead facts to support a finding that his sentence was facially invalid and raised only a claim challenging the legality of the imposition of his sentence that was filed far outside the time limitations set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2, the trial court did not err in denying the petition. Therefore, Appellant’s motion for permission to file a belated reply brief was moot. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion asking to be provided with a copy of four coram nobis petitions he previously filed that were denied by the trial court without requiring him to remit the standard photocopying fee charged by the clerk’s office, holding that Petitioner failed to show that copies of the coram nobis petitions should be provided to him at no cost.In his motion, Petitioner appended an affidavit of indigency. The Supreme Court noted that, to be entitled to copies at public expense, a petition must demonstrate a compelling need for the copies to support some allegation contained in a petition for postconviction relief. Because Petitioner cited no postconviction remedy available to him and otherwise made no showing of compelling need, the Supreme Court denied the motion. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the denial of a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging that his guilty plea was not voluntarily or intelligently entered with the assistance of competent counsel, holding that Appellant’s allegations were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings.Pending before the Supreme Court was Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, which mooted Appellant’s motion for extension of brief time, holding that where ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable in error coram nobis proceedings, Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Gray v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded for further findings of fact this appeal from the denial of Appellant’s petition to proceed in the circuit court as a pauper with a petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court failed to provide sufficient findings for the Supreme Court to review.In Gardner v. Kelley, 549 S.W.3d 349 (Ark. 2018), the Supreme Court held that the circuit court is required under Ark. R. Civ. P. 72 to enter specific findings on a petitioner’s indigency before addressing issues as to whether the petition had stated a colorable claim. Here, the Court remanded to the circuit court for a supplemental order on the in forma pauperis petition that contains adequate findings of fact and complies with Ark. R. Civ. P. 72. View "Rea v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition asking that the Court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner did not establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. After a retrial, Petitioner was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that a witness who testified on retrial recanted her testimony implicating him. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner’s claim of recanted testimony, standing alone, was not cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding and that the allegations concerning the testimony were developed during his trial. View "Foreman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to allege a basis for the circuit court to grant the writ.Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed. After his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, Appellant filed a second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to habeas petition relief because he was convicted of a crime for which he had not been charged, and therefore, his conviction was invalid. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claim was one of trial error that did not impact the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or render his sentence facially invalid. View "Mitchell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgment of the circuit court granting in part and denying in part Appellant’s unverified petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding, inter alia, that a fair-cross-section-of-the-jury violation is structural and therefore cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings.Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the jury’s decision would have been different had evidence of Appellant’s other crimes been excluded; (2) the circuit court clearly erred by requiring Appellant to prove that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to pursue a fair-cross-section claim, and therefore, the court erred in denying Appellant’s ineffective assistance claim; and (3) the circuit court did not clearly err in its determination that trial counsel was ineffective for his failure to call a certain witness during the penalty phase and in thus vacating Appellant’s death sentence. View "Reams v. State" on Justia Law