Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Appellant from the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed his petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101 to - 123. In dismissing Appellant’s petition, the circuit court found that Appellant was no longer within its jurisdiction and that none of Appellant’s claims were cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, which rendered moot Appellant’s motion seeking to file a nonconforming belated brief, holding that a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Lincoln County Circuit Court could not be returned because, at the time the petition was dismissed, Appellant was incarcerated in Lee County. View "Dunahue v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s pro se petition or writ of mandamus seeking to compel the circuit judge to rule on a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, a motion for a copy of the trial transcript, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that Petitioner’s petition and related motions had been pending for beyond a time reasonably necessary to dispose of them. The Supreme Court, however, denied Petitioner’s request that this court compel the judge to declare Petitioner’s sentences and convictions void, grant an evidentiary hearing, appoint counsel, and order a new trial. View "Williams v. Honorable Steven Porch" 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 which Appellant alleged that the judgment-and-commitment order entered in his criminal case was facially invalid because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding parole eligibility. In dismissing the petition, the circuit court found that Appellant had failed to establish probable cause that he was being held illegally, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, or that the commitment was invalid on its face. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which rendered moot the motion Appellant filed in connection with the petition, holding that Appellant failed to establish probable cause for the writ to issue. View "Garrison v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, in which Appellant argued that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance during his criminal proceedings. The trial court found that Appellant failed to establish that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Appellant’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony in the sentencing proceeding, for not calling certain witnesses, and for advising Appellant to plead guilty. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying the motion filed by Appellant, the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, to dismiss an action brought by Appellee for violations of the overtime of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), Ark. Code Ann. 11-4-201 to -222. On appeal, Appellant argued that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied, and therefore, the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss because it lacked jurisdiction over Appellee’s AMWA claim pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. View "Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v. Andrews" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part and dismissed in part the circuit court’s denial of the motion filed by Appellants - employees of Arkansas State University - to dismiss Appellee’s complaint asserting that Appellants denied her due process under the Arkansas Constitution and violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In their motion to dismiss, Appellants argued that the complaint was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because Appellee did not state a cognizable due process violation and that the FOIA claim failed as a matter of law because the records Appellant requested were shielded from disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105(b)(2). The Supreme Court held (1) Appellee’s complaint failed to state sufficient facts to support a due-process violation, and therefore, Appellee’s due-process claim was barred by sovereign immunity; and (2) because Appellant’s argument regarding Appellee’s FOIA claim did not implicate sovereign immunity, this issue was dismissed on appeal. View "Williams v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the denial by the Chico County Circuit Court of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which rendered moot Appellant’s motion seeking to file a belated brief on appeal. Appellant filed his habeas corpus petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101 to -123. In denying the petition, the circuit court found that the petition contained no allegations that Appellant’s judgment-and-commitment order imposed an illegal sentence or was invalid on its face, or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Chico County Circuit Court could not be returned because Appellant was no longer within its jurisdiction. View "Perry v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the denial by the trial court of his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, which rendered moot Appellant’s motion for extension of brief time, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal. In his coram nobis petition, Appellant argued that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been properly advised by his attorney and that he did not commit the offense of which he was convicted. The Supreme Court held that none of Appellant’s claims were cognizable as a ground for the writ, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the petition. View "Griffin v. State" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme court reversed the circuit court’s disqualification of counsel for Appellant. The circuit court dismissed counsel on the basis that counsel had a conflict and was disqualified from representing Appellant. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the circuit court erred in disqualifying Appellant’s counsel based solely on opposing counsel’s statement that the attorney would be called as a witness. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court’s decision to impose “the drastic measure” of disqualifying counsel constituted an abuse of discretion because there was no motion to disqualify counsel or any consideration of the factors set forth in Weigel v. Farmers Insurance Co., 158 S.W.3d 147, 150-51 (Ark. 2004). View "Helena County Club v. Brocato" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment reflecting his conviction on a robbery charge. The trial court found that Appellant had not demonstrated that his conviction should be dismissed or that he was being illegally detained. The trial court “appeared to treat the petition as a request for habeas relief not under Act 1780, in spite of Porter’s specific identification of the Act as his basis for relief.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court reached the correct result, even if it used the wrong analysis, holding that Petitioner’s petition failed as one under Act 1980 because Petitioner identified no scientific evidence and did not request testing or identify any testing to be performed. View "Porter v. State" on Justia Law