Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, one of three companion cases, Appellant appealed from sentencing orders entered after the original judgments of conviction, entered in 1978, were remanded in 2014 for resentencing. At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred in denying Appellant’s request to run all of the sentences imposed on him on resentencing concurrent to each other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issue that Appellant raised on appeal did not directly relate to the case before the court, and therefore, there was no allegation of error in this case. View "Pennington v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, one of three companion cases, Appellant appealed from sentencing orders entered after the original judgments of conviction, entered in 1978, were remanded in 2014 for resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the circuit court had the authority to order that the sentences in one of the cases run consecutively to the sentences in the other two cases. Specifically, the court held (1) the trial court was permitted in 1978 to run Appellant’s sentences consecutively; and (2) as it was permissible in 1978 to sentence Appellant to the term of years imposed on resentencing and to run the sentences as ordered, the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in imposing Appellant’s sentence. View "Pennington v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and capital murder. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and abused its discretion by admitting into evidence gruesome and inflammatory photographs of the victim’s body. The Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Appellant was an accomplice to the crimes, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant’s motions for directed verdict; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim’s body. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the denial of his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, which rendered moot Appellant’s pro se motion for appointment of counsel and stay of briefing schedule in his pending pro se appeal. After his conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life plus 360 months’ imprisonment. In his 16-90-111 petition, Petitioner argued that his sentences were imposed illegally in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. The trial court denied Appellant’s petition to correct an illegal sentence as untimely petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not clearly err when it denied Appellant’s petition because the petition was untimely and the sentences did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. View "Jenkins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s second petition pro se petition asking the court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Petitioner again alleged that the State and his trial counsel violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by threatening and intimidating witnesses from testifying at trial, not revealing to the defense each person interviewed by the State, and encouraging witnesses to provide false testimony. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation because all of the allegations were conclusory and not sufficient to demonstrate that material evidence was withheld by the State in violation of Brady. View "McCullough v. State" 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. In his petition, Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the state violated his constitutional rights by amending the information three times and that he was illegally arrested on a pretext. Noting that Petitioner’s petition was based on allegations of error that occurred in the course of the criminal proceedings against him, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a basis on which the writ should issue and thus denied the petition. View "Faulkens v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Appellant’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the offense of capital murder and that his due process rights had been violated. In his petition, Petitioner claimed that the State failed to charge or prove the underlying felony of robbery in furtherance of the murder and that his due process rights were denied because his intention to commit a robbery was never formed before the beginning of the fatal assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition, holding that there was no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. View "Clay v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because the State did not adhere to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement and because, when he entered his plea, he did not agree to serve seventy percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. In other words, while Appellant admitted that the original judgment and sentence were valid, Appellant argued that the State’s failure to abide by the terms of the plea agreement rendered the judgment void. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant’s pro se petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil matter. Appellant, an inmate, first sought release of certain documents from his criminal file and the confirmation by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory of the existence of certain evidence. Appellant’s request was denied. Thereafter, Appellant sought to proceed as a pauper so that he could file a pro se petition for writ of mandamus to obtain the evidence. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis was clearly erroneous given Appellant’s indigency status and his petition sufficiently stating a colorable cause of action. View "Penn v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court treated Petitioner’s pro se motion for belated appeal and rule on clerk as a motion for belated appeal under Ark. R. App. P-Crim. 2(e), rather than as a motion for rule on clerk, and denied the petition. In his motion, Petitioner asked that he be permitted to proceed with an appeal of a circuit court order denying his petition and amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Because Petitioner failed to establish good cause for his delay in acting in this matter, the Supreme Court denied the motion. View "Matar v. State" on Justia Law