Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from an order of the trying court dismissing without prejudice Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot, holding that the order dismissing the petition was not a final, appealable order denying relief.In 2016, Appellant filed the petition for writ of mandamus seeking order directing the prosecuting attorney to comply with a request Appellant had made under the Freedom of Information Act for access to evidence and documents related to the criminal investigation that led to his conviction in his criminal case. The Supreme Court held that Appellant had no right to appeal the dismissal of his petition because the appeal was not one directly arising from his conviction. View "Flowers v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of audit querela, which the Court treated as a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis, or alternatively, for leave to file a postconviction petition in the trial court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(a). The Court held (1) Petitioner failed to raise sufficient allegations that established entitlement to relief under coram nobis; and (2) because Petitioner’s Rule 37.2 petition was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations, he was not entitled to relief unless his assertions would render the judgment void, and the adequacy of Miranda warnings does not implicate a fundamental right that is capable of voiding the judgment. View "Munnerlyn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying and dismissing Appellant’s pro se petition or dismissal of fines or, in the alternative, for imposition of public-service work on the grounds that the record did not include a copy of the judgment originally entered in Appellant’s criminal case, in which she was sentenced to pay the fine or fines at issue. Appellant’s sole argument on appeal was that the basis for her petition was a statute that permits a court to reduce the amount of payment or revoke the unpaid portion of the fine. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err where the record did not contain pertinent documents and where Appellant’s argument was not raised in the trial court. View "Force v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for writ of coram nobis, which rendered moot Appellant’s motion in which he sought permission to file a belated reply brief with a supplemental addendum.Appellant was convicted on eighteen counts of possession of child pornography. Appellant filed his petition for the writ, which the trial court treated as one for writ of error coram nobis and then concluded that it did not have authority to consider the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly treated the petition as one for error coram nobis relief; and (2) because at the time Appellant filed his petition he had not sought the Supreme Court’s permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the petition. View "Whitney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his pro se petition for permission to proceed with a belated appeal, which rendered moot Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal.Appellant pleaded guilty to rape, residential burglary, and kidnapping. Appellant filed this petition for permission to file belated appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal was the fault of the circuit clerk because the clerk failed promptly to mail him a copy of the order. The trial court denied the petition, stating that there is no statutory requirement that the circuit clerk promptly forward a denial order to a defendant on the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. View "Gaye v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that the petition was without merit, and Petitioner failed to act with due diligence in bringing the petition. The Supreme Court also denied Petitioner’s motion to file a “noncompliant brief/response” and for extension of time in which Petitioner requested to file a response to the State’s response to his coram nobis petition, holding that there was no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure to file a response to a response and Petitioner did no state good cause to file a response to a response. View "Mosley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions for negligent homicide, driving while intoxicated, and reckless driving, holding (1) because the refusal to submit to a blood test pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 5-65-202 would result in the imposition of criminal penalties, as applied to Appellant, the statute is unconstitutional, and therefore, the circuit court clearly erred in finding that the blood draw from Appellant did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the totality of the circumstances did not establish that Appellant either impliedly or voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw. View "Dortch 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 the circuit court did not clearly err in denying the petition.Appellant was convicted of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to 840 months, 240 months, and 120 months in prison, to be served consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his sentence was illegal because the information did not contain a habitual offender charge. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied the petition because the felony information contained language referring to the habitual offender statute, and therefore it was sufficient to put Defendant on notice that his prior convictions could be introduced in assessing an enhanced sentence. View "King v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Appellant’s request to file an affidavit of sovereignty based on its conclusion that the affidavit did not state a colorable cause of action that would entitle Appellant to proceed in forma pauperis.Appellant filed in the circuit court a petition to proceed in forma pauperis alleging that he was being illegally detained. Appellant sought indigent status for the purpose of filing an “affidavit of sovereignty” declaring that he was not a citizen of the Untied States or subject to its laws. Because Appellant’s affidavit of sovereignty sought relief from the condition of his probation, it was treated as an application for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of relief, which rendered moot the petitions Appellant filed in connection with his appeal, holding that it was clear that Appellant could not prevail in his appeal. View "Whitney v. Guterres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a meritorious attack on the judgment because he failed to establish an error of fact extrinsic to the record that could not have been raised in the trial court.In his petition, Petitioner, who was convicted of three counts of rape, argued that he was mentally incompetent and that trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a writ should issue. View "Martinez-Marmol v. State" on Justia Law