Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing on the ground that Defendant had not stated a ground for the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied the writ because Defendant did not state a ground on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued. View "Fulton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of criminal-attempt first-degree murder and two counts of committing a terroristic act. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant later filed in the trial court an amended petition seeking scientific testing under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas specifically requesting as relief that a pair of shoes be tested to prove that he never wore or touched them. The trial court denied Act 1780 relief, finding that the amended petition was not timely and that there was no new scientific testing that was not available at the time of trial or that has since developed that would entitle Appellant to relief. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a pro se motion for an extension of time to file a complete record on appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant was not entitled to Act 1780 relief. View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition seeking judicial review of a decision of the Arkansas Parole Board that denied Appellant’s application for parole. In his petition, Appellant contended that the Board had deprived him of liberty without due process and had retroactively applied a parole statute in violation of the ex-post-facto prohibition in the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Appellant filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with his petition for judicial review. The circuit court summarily denied Appellant’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis on the basis that Appellant had not stated a colorable claim. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that Appellant failed to state a colorable claim based on the allegation that the denial of his parole eligibility constituted a violation of his right to due process but did state sufficient non-conclusory facts to assert a colorable claim for judicial review of an alleged violation of the ex-post-facto prohibition, and therefore, Appellant was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. View "Ruiz v. Felts" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault. Petitioner was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. Petitioner then sought leave from the Supreme Court to proceed with a belated appeal, asserting that he notified his appointed attorney in a timely manner that he desired to appeal and that he was unaware until nearly eighteen months later that no appeal had been perfected. The Supreme Court remanded this matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether petition informed counsel within the time period allowed for filing a notice of appeal that he desired to appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion for belated appeal after accepting the trial court’s findings that Petitioner did not articulate a desire to appeal within the time allowed for counsel to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Lyons v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from custody. An order was entered denying the petition. Thirty-five days later, Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se motion seeking to proceed with a belated appeal of the order denying his petition. Petitioner argued that his notice of appeal should be considered timely pursuant to Houston v. Lack, which stands for the proposition that a notice of appeal in some federal-court matters is considered filed by a pro se prisoner when he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the record did not support Petitioner’s contentions. View "Howard v. Webber" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for sexually grooming a child, two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, and rape. Defendant received life sentences without parole for each of his first-degree sexual assault convictions and for his rape conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court violated his due process rights by allowing an ex post facto application of the habitual offender ranges with regard to his life sentences. The State asserted that Defendant’s ex post facto argument was being raised for the first time on appeal and that it was, therefore, not preserved for review. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed without addressing the merits of Defendant’s argument on appeal. View "Stover v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with numerous misdemeanor offenses. Defendant appealed his convictions in district court to the circuit court, where he stood trial before a jury. After the State rested, Defendant filed a motion for directed verdict, arguing that he had been illegally arrested and that he was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment of acquittal on all charges. The circuit court orally granted Defendant’s motion, excused the jury, and rendered a verdict of not guilty to all charges. The State appealed, arguing that the dismissal of the charges against Defendant was not the appropriate remedy for the illegal arrest. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s ruling was not subject to review, and this was not a proper appeal by the State. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was sixteen years old at the time of his arrest, was charged as an adult with robbery and aggravated assault. Defendant was subsequently interviewed by police in connection with an assault of a female. The day after he made a statement, Defendant was charged as an adult with residential burglary, sexual assault in the second degree, and aggravated assault. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statement he made to police. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was unable to waive his right to counsel because he was in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services at the time of the interview. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-317(g) and therefore erred in granting Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, first-degree robbery, and attempted rape. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas. The trial court ultimately denied the petition as being untimely and otherwise without merit. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and now pending before the Supreme Court was Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, therefore mooting the motion, holding that the trial court did not clearly err when it determined that Appellant’s petition was untimely and not meritorious. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and possession of a firearm by certain persons. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for new trial where members of his family were barred from the courtroom during voir dire and denying his request for a jury instruction on manslaughter and justification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s finding that the courtroom was not closed during voir dire was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s claims of instructional error were not preserved for appellate review. View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law