Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Petitioner requesting permission to proceed with an appeal of an order entered by the trial court denying his pro se petition for dismissal of fines, fees, and costs. More than one year after the judgment of conviction was entered in his case, Petitioner filed a petition asking that the fines, fees, and costs noted on the judgment be dismissed because he could not pay them. The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court treated the petition as a motion for rule on clerk and dismissed the motion, holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner sought, and therefore, Petitioner could not prevail on appeal of the order denying that relief. View "Whitney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of Appellant’s claim that she sustained a compensable brain injury while working in a Kroger store. The Commission found that Appellant’s injury was the result of a syncope, which was caused by an arrhythmic heart condition, rather than a slip and fall or an unexplained fall. On appeal, Appellant argued that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s finding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s stated reason for denying benefits that Appellant’s injury was caused by an idiopathic condition and not an unexplained, compensable fall. View "Asking v. Kroger Limited Partnership I" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis filed by Petitioner, who was convicted of first-degree murder. Petitioner’s coram nobis petition was largely made up of claims that the evidence adduced at his trial was insufficient to prove that he was guilty of first-degree murder, along with claims of trial error, challenges to the judgment of the appellate courts, and a contention that a Brady violation occurred during his trial proceedings. In denying the petition, the Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue. View "Carner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in denying Appellants’ motion to certify two classes in litigation against Appellee. Appellee opposed certification, arguing that no class could be certified because no class existed and that the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 23 were not satisfied. The trial court agreed and denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as in Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Pipkin Enterprises, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 115 (Ark. 2004), the definitions of the proposed classes were not based on objective criteria, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to certify the classes. View "Walker v. Wilmoe Corp." on Justia Law

A nonlawyer may not appeal a tax assessment to a county court on behalf of a corporation.Appellants appealed the county assessor’s tax assessment, and the letters were signed by Appellants’ representative, a nonattorney. The county court upheld the assessments. Appellants appealed, and the notice of appeal was filed by a licensed attorney. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal constituted the unauthorized practice of law, rendering the petition to appeal a nullity and depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that, because a nonlawyer invoked the process of a court, the county court never acquired jurisdiction over Appellants’ appeal, thus depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction. View "USAC Leasing LLC v. Hill" on Justia Law

In this case challenging a county assessor’s ad valorem tax assessments, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Appellees on the grounds that Appellants’ representative, a nonattorney, committed the unauthorized practice of law by signing a petition to appeal the tax assessment to the county court.The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court for the reasons expressed in its opinion issued today in DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 2017 Ark. 326, holding that the petitions for appeal were null and void because a corporation or its nonattorney officers or employees on its behalf are not authorized to practice law in Arkansas. View "USAC Leasing LLC v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s pro se petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that the trial court did not clearly err when it denied relief. In his petition, Appellant alleged, among other claims, that counsel failed fully to investigate and develop a theory of defense, failed to order a mental evaluation, and did not inform him that the prosecutor had not yet given notice of intent to seek the death penalty at the time the plea was entered. The Supreme Court held that there was no showing that the trial court clearly erred when it denied relief. View "True v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and his pro se motion to file a reply to the State’s response to his coram nobis petition, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a fundamental error extrinsic to the record that would have prevented rendition of the judgment. Petitioner, who was convicted of two counts of rape, argued in his petition that the prosecutor withheld material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to state sufficient facts to establish a meritorious Brady claim. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order certifying a class in this action filed by Appellees alleging that Appellants’ business practices violated the anti-usury language of amendment 89 to the Arkansas Constitution and of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The circuit court’s order defined the class as any and all “persons who have owed, currently owe or will incur debts” arising out of transactions with Appellants. For the reasons set forth in Arch Street Pawn Shop, LLC v. Gunn, 2017 Ark. 341, also decided today, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the class. View "Pawnderosa Pawn Shops, Inc. v. Conley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition and amended petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. In his petitions, Appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and raised independent claims of error in the trial proceedings. The trial court concluded that Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or that the trial proceedings were constitutionally infirm. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in determining that Appellant failed to demonstrate fundamental error cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings or that Appellant failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice for his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law