Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of capital murder, holding that no reversible error occurred in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing Latrenda Gibson, a witness to the crime, to testify and, in the alternative, in denying his motion for a continuance. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court’s rulings on this issue were erroneous due to the late disclosure of the State’s intent to have Gibson testify. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Gibson to testify or by denying Defendant’s request for a continuance. View "Duncan v. State" on Justia Law

In this capital murder case, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion to recall the mandate in Ward v. State, 1 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ark. 1999) (Ward III), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to an independent defense expert to aid in his defense regarding his competency.At his 1997 resentencing, Petitioner was sentenced to death for a third time. The Supreme Court affirmed his sentence on appeal in Ward III. Now before the court, Petitioner filed a motion to recall the mandate in Ward III, asserting that he was entitled to an independent mental health expert under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). The Supreme Court took the motion as a case and entered a stay of execution. After the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (2017), the Arkansas Supreme Court denied the motion and lifted the stay of execution, holding (1) pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, Petitioner’s arguments provided no basis for granting his motion to recall the mandate in his re sentencing; and (2) there was no merit to Petitioner’s arguments that this court misinterpreted Ake or that McWilliams altered or expanded the standard required by Ake. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant did not state a ground for the writ in his petition.Appellant, who pleaded guilty as a habitual offender to multiple felony charges, argued on appeal (1) that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty to the charge of rape, (2) that the trial court improperly determined that he was a habitual offender, (3) that the judgment and commitment order was facially invalid, and (4) that the circuit court did not address three grounds for relief raised in his habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish a ground for issuance of a writ in his petition, and consequently, the circuit court was not obligated to conduct a hearing on it. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part an order of the circuit court denying Appellant’s motion to pursue his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis and ordering the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) to withhold the applicable statutory filing fee from Appellant’s inmate account. The Supreme Court held (1) Appellant’s Veterans’ Administration disability benefits may be counted as income 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, as the proceeds of the account are derived entirely from Appellant’s disability benefits. View "Halfacre v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court treated Petitioner’s pro se motion for rule on clerk and for belated appeal as a motion for belated appeal and denied the motion, holding that Petitioner’s petition was wholly without merit.Petitioner sought to appeal the trial court’s denial of his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. The trial court addressed the petition as one for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 and under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 and then denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the denial of Petitioner’s claim for relief under section 16-90-111 was not error; and (2) Petitioner was not entitled to relief under Rule 37.1. View "Latham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of capital murder, thus rejecting Defendant’s arguments for reversal on appeal.After Defendant was convicted, Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting a confession he made while in custody and incorrectly declined to adopt his suggested modifications of, and omissions from, the submitted model jury instructions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not clearly err in refusing to suppress Defendant’s confession; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining Defendant’s proposed modifications of, and omissions from, the submitted model jury instructions. View "Kellon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court treated Petitioner’s pro se “petition for review en banc of the clerks [sic] decision” as a motion for rule on clerk and dismissed the motion.Petitioner was convicted of eighteen counts of possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirmed on appeal. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court dismissed the Rule 37.1 petition because the petition did not have the necessary affidavit under Rule 37.1(c). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the order, but the clerk declined to file the record because it was not timely tendered. Petitioner then filed this petition alleging that the procedural default should be excused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the trial court did not have authority to consider the merits of the petition when it did or later, Petitioner could not succeed on appeal. View "Whitney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his motion to refile a habeas petition, holding that Appellant’s appeal was not from an appealable order and that it was clear from the record that he could not prevail on appeal.Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court dismissed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to refile a habeas petition, which the circuit court denied. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, which rendered moot the motions filed in connection with the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s motion was not a final judgment, and therefore, there was no final, appealable order entered in this case. View "Fields v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se sixth petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Petitioner argued that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated, that the bench-arrest warrant was invalid because it was not signed by a judge, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) regarding the Miranda issue, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue because he failed to establish an error of fact extrinsic to the record that could not have been raised in the trial court; (2) Petitioner’s bench-arrest warrant argument violated the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine; and (3) Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not grounds for the writ. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis without a hearing. In the petition, Appellant claimed that he was coerced by trial counsel into pleading guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault and that the State’s evidence against him was insufficient to support the charges. The trial court concluded that Appellant failed to support his claim of coercion with a factual basis and that the petition was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s allegations in the form of misrepresentations by counsel was the type of claim that should have been raised under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 and not in coram nobis proceedings; and (2) Appellant’s final claim did not establish a ground for the writ. View "Ramirez v. State" on Justia Law