Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-11b and petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly found that the habeas petition was not properly addressed to the trial court, therefore depriving the trial court of jurisdiction; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying relief under section 16-90-11 because Appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence and his assertion of constitutional error did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment and were not within the purview of section 16-90-111. View "Leach v. State" on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the circuit court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and set aside the jury’s unanimous verdict in favor of Defendants. Defendants appealed, arguing that none of the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s new trial motion provided grounds to set aside the verdict. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the jury’s verdict was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and that a new trial was warranted under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(6). View "James Tree & Crane Service Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner, who was convicted by a jury of capital felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, asserted in his petition that the prosecution committed a violation of Brady v. Maryland by withholding evidence at the time of trial. The Supreme Court held (1) the allegations advanced by Petitioner did not warrant reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a coram nobis petition; and (2) further, Petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in bringing this coram nobis petition. View "Heffernan v. State" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his twin children. The circuit court found that Father was an unfit parent based on two statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(b) and (b)(3)(B)(ii)(a). On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred in both findings because the statute requires that the children have lived out of the custody of the “parent” for twelve months. The Supreme Court agreed with Father, holding that the circuit court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights because the record did not demonstrate that Father’s legal status as the biological parent was established to apply the twelve-month time period described in the statute. View "Earls v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the circuit court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition because any errors demonstrated by Appellant were either nonprejudicial under the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington or inappropriate for postconviction consideration. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

In this complaint filed against Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC and related entities (collectively, Robinson), the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order granting class certification in part and reversed it in part. Andrew Phillips filed a first amended class-action complaint challenging Robinson’s business practice of chronic understaffing. Robinson appealed the order granting class certification, arguing that Phillips did not meet his burden of proving commonality, predominance, typicality, and superiority, and that the class definition was overbroad. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) properly granted class certification as to Phillips’s claims of breach of contract, Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), and unjust enrichment; and (2) abused its discretion in certifying the class action as to Phillips’s negligence claim. View "Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an order denying Appellant’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to establish probable cause for issuance of the writ and, in any event, failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Appellant, who was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes in three separate cases, alleged in his petition that his sentences were facially invalid and that he was actually innocent for the crimes for which he had been convicted, among other claims. The Court held that the circuit court’s order denying habeas relief was not clearly erroneous. View "Pennington v. Kelley" 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 in the case and declared as moot Petitioners motions for, inter alia, appointment of counsel and to proceed forma pauperis. Petitioner, who was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder, contended as grounds for issuance of the writ that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial and on direct appeal, that he was actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted, that the trial court made errors in his trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment. The Court held (1) several of Petitioner’s claims were not a ground for the writ or not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding; (2) as to the remaining claims, the allegations advanced by Petitioner did not warrant reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a coram nobis petition; and (3) Petitioner failed to show that he exercised due diligence in raising his claims for coram nobis relief. View "Mitchell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted a question certified to it by the court of appeals regarding the suspension, discharge, or reduction in rank for certain civil-service officers. The Court answered (1) appeals from civil-service commissions under Ark. Code Ann. 14-51-308(e) are not required by law to be heard by the Supreme Court pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(8); and (2) therefore, civil-service-commission appeals shall continue to be filed in the court of appeals unless there is another basis for Supreme Court jurisdiction under Rule 1-2. View "Bales v. City of Fort Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and employing a firearm as a means of committing the murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce character evidence to show that he acted in conformity with his character when he committed the crimes. In response, the State asserted that because Appellant injected into the trial his character as a peaceful person, the State was allowed to rebut the evidence through cross-examination on relevant specific instances of Appellant’s conduct. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present testimony regarding Appellant’s character for lack of peacefulness because there was no testimony on that characteristic for the State to rebut. View "Stanton v. State" on Justia Law