Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 affirmed the order of the circuit court modifying the visitation awarded to Father and denying Mother’s petition to modify the amount Father pays in child support. The Court held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court did not err in finding that there had been a material change in circumstances that justified modifying Father’s visitation with the parties’ child; and (2) the circuit court did not err in deciding not to include the increase in the value of Father’s stock portfolio in the calculation of his child-support obligation and deciding not to impute additional income to Father. View "Dare v. Frost" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court modifying the visitation awarded to Father and denying Mother’s petition to modify the amount Father pays in child support. The Court held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court did not err in finding that there had been a material change in circumstances that justified modifying Father’s visitation with the parties’ child; and (2) the circuit court did not err in deciding not to include the increase in the value of Father’s stock portfolio in the calculation of his child-support obligation and deciding not to impute additional income to Father. View "Dare v. Frost" 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

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order granting Burger King’s motion for summary judgment in an action seeking relief from a tax assessment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 26-18-406, holding that the circuit court erred in construing the relevant statutes and promulgated rules to find that Burger King was required to pay taxes only on the wholesale value of the food ingredients removed from stock, as opposed to the retail value of the meals. The Supreme Court held (1) because the parties did not raise in the proceedings below the issue of sovereign immunity, it was not properly addressed further in this case; and (2) as to the merits of the case, the tax of the manager meals is assessed on the retail value of the meal, rather than the wholesale value of the individual ingredients withdrawn from stock. View "Walther v. Flis Enterprises, Inc." 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