Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se motion for belated appeal of an order that dismissed Petitioner’s pro se petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief, holding that the order that Petitioner would appeal was not a final, appealable order.In his petition, Petitioner alleged that Defendants, including the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), violated his due process rights and implemented disciplinary procedures against him in violation of ADC policy. The circuit court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding that Petitioner had failed to serve the defendants as required. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion for belated appeal of the order, holding that the order was not a final, appealable order because Petitioner was allowed under the procedural rules to refile his claim after his petition had been dismissed. View "McCullough v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition and amended petition to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 because he did not establish that his sentences were illegal on their face. The court further held 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 (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief to correct an illegal sentence because his sentence was illegal on its face; and (2) to the extent Appellant raised claims regarding the illegal imposition of sentence or of ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims should have been raised in a timely Rule 37.1 petition. 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 under either Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 or Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to seventy-five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Almost twenty-five years after the mandate issued Appellant filed this petition alleging that his sentence was illegal. The trial court found that the petition was untimely and successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the only timely challenge before the circuit court was Defendant’s facial challenge to his sentence, and the court did not err in denying relief. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se motion filed pursuant to the state Freedom of Information Act, in which Petitioner sought a copy at public expense of certain written material on file with the Supreme Court. Specifically, Petitioner asked for copies of four coram nobis petitions that he filed in his criminal case but sought to be excused from paying the standard photocopying fee charged by the clerk’s office. In denying the petition, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to show that copies of the coram nobis petitions should be provided to him at no cost. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se motion filed pursuant to the state Freedom of Information Act, in which Petitioner sought a copy at public expense of certain written material on file with the Supreme Court. Specifically, Petitioner asked for copies of four coram nobis petitions that he filed in his criminal case but sought to be excused from paying the standard photocopying fee charged by the clerk’s office. In denying the petition, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to show that copies of the coram nobis petitions should be provided to him at no cost. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which Appellant alleged entitlement to coram nobis relief primarily on the basis of allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, which mooted his motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief, holding that Appellant’s allegations were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, and therefore, Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Gray v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which Appellant alleged entitlement to coram nobis relief primarily on the basis of allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, which mooted his motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief, holding that Appellant’s allegations were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, and therefore, Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Gray v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. In his petition, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in multiple instances. The trial court disagreed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to meet the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performed prejudiced his defense; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying the petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. In his petition, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in multiple instances. The trial court disagreed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to meet the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performed prejudiced his defense; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying the petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

In this capital murder case, the Supreme Court denied Appellant’s motion to recall this court’s mandate in Appellant’s direct appeal, holding that there was no breakdown in the appellate process that would warrant recalling the mandate.Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Here, Appellant filed a motion to recall the mandate and stay his execution, arguing that he did not receive the minimum due-process requirements prescribed in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Specifically, Appellant argued that the Supreme Court misapplied Ake, and therefore, he did not have access to an independent mental health expert to assist in his defense. The Supreme Court granted Appellant’s motion to stay his execution and took his motion to recall the mandate as a case. The court then denied the motion and lifted the stay of his execution, holding that because Appellant made the strategic decision not to pursue a partisan psychiatrist, there was not a “defect in the appellate process” that was attributable to this court upon its review. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law