Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree battery. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of sixty-five years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 37.1, in which he asserted numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s claims that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "Liggins v. State" on Justia Law

In 1982, judgment was entered reflecting that Appellant pleaded guilty to capital felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2016, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis asserting that he was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his plea and that the was coerced and threatened into changing his plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease to a plea of guilty. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition did not state a ground to warrant issuance of a writ of error coram nobis and that Appellant was not diligent in bringing the petition. View "Matthews v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was found in criminal contempt for failing to appear as counsel at his client’s jury trial. Appellant appealed, arguing that he could not be held in contempt for willfully violating the trial court’s scheduling order because he was under subpoena in another court and that the court’s decision to deny Appellant’s motion to delay the trial rendered the court’s underlying scheduling order invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the court’s contempt finding and that the failure to appear in one court due to a conflict in another can still amount to willful contempt. View "Valley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, who was convicted on a drug possession charge, filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s decision to deny a motion for an appeal bond and remand with directions for the trial court to set a bond. The trial court found that Appellant did not demonstrate that he had a substantial question of law or fact to raise on appeal. The Supreme Court accepted certification of the petition from the court of appeals. In response, the State argued that the record for the certiorari petition was insufficient because it did not include a written ruling on the motion to set bond. Appellant filed a petition the Supreme Court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and remanded for a new bond hearing, holding that Wells raised an issue that was a sufficient question to satisfy the requirements of Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 6(b)(1). View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. The sentencing order reflected a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction and the imposition of a consecutive firearm enhancement of 120 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) initially calculated Appellant’s term of imprisonment to a total aggregate term of 240 months’ imprisonment but later changed Appellant’s computation card to reflect an increase in the time to be served to a term of 360 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a grievance, alleging that the ADC had illegally increased his sentence. The ADC summarily denied Appellant’s grievance. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review. The ADC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that its decision was not subject to judicial review. The circuit court granted the ADC’s motion. The Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the ADC’s recalculation of Appellant’s time was in error, holding that because the unlawful confinement of an individual under a sentence longer than statutorily permitted constitutes a denial of due process, the ADC’s decision was subject to judicial review. View "Ward v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property with a firearm enhancement. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that he was denied a fair and impartial trial because the jury and victims were all white and the trial judge was aggravated with him. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s decision to deny the requested relief was not clearly erroneous. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

On November 13, 2014, Defendant was charged by information with one count of theft by deception, a Class B felony. The State averred in the information that the offense was committed between June 1, 2011 and June 14, 2014. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations for Class B felonies had expired before commencement of the prosecution, that theft by deception is not a continuing offense, and that there was no fraud for purposes of the tolling provision. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the question of whether the statute of limitations was extended due to Defendant’s fraud was not properly before the Court; and (2) the circuit court did not err in dismissing the charge because theft by deception generally does not constitute a continuing offense. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

In 2013, Appellant was convicted of raping a young girl and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied relief, concluding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony from witnesses; (2) counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a sleeping juror; and (3) counsel was not ineffective for failing to call into question the credibility of the alleged victims. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of forgery in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed. The State filed a motion to dismiss or remand the matter, arguing that the trial court’s order was entered in error. The Supreme Court granted the motion and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court entered a second order that denied relief. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not state good cause for the late filing of the notice of appeal. View "Richard v. State" on Justia Law

In 1978, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the circuit court in three cases. Under Act 1993 of 1977, which was in effect when Appellant committed the offenses, he was not eligible for release on parole unless his life sentences were commuted to a term of years. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when he was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed when he was a minor. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed but, on rehearing, held that the sentencing orders against Appellant were facially invalid in light of the recent decision in Hale v. Hobbs. Appellant was subsequently resentenced. Appellant then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his 1978 guilty pleas on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel and a pro se motion for relief from the resentencing order. The trial court dismissed the pro se pleadings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter for an amended sentencing order in one case, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s pro se pleadings but that the sentencing order in 60CR-77-1934 was incorrect. View "Pennington v. State" on Justia Law