Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

by
After a retrial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of rape. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, propounding three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that allegedly occurred at his second trial. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court remanded for a hearing on Appellant’s last two claims. On remand, after a hearing, the circuit court denied Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it concluded (1) that counsel’s decision to call no character witnesses during the trial was based on reasonable professional judgment, and (2) that counsel’s advice that Appellant not testify was based on reasonable professional judgment. View "Sandrelli v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Attorney Jimmy Morris was the defense attorney of a defendant charged with first degree murder. The circuit court found Morris in contempt for failing to appear on time for the defendant’s jury trial and fined him $4,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by finding Morris in criminal attempt because the court had substantial evidence with which to conclude that Morris’s behavior constituted a willful violation of the trial court’s scheduling order; and (2) under the particular facts of this case, the purpose of the contempt punishment will be accomplished by the lesser fine of $2,000. View "Morris v. State" on Justia Law

by
Keep Our Dollars in Independence County (KODIC), a local-option ballot question committee, sponsored a petition to allow Independence County voters to decide whether to permit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in the county. Tracey Mitchell, the Independence County Clerk, determined that the petition was insufficient to be placed on the November 8, 2016 ballot because 424 otherwise valid signatures had not been counted on the grounds that those signatures appeared on petition parts also containing the signature of someone outside Independence County in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 3-8-811(b)(6). KODIC and taxpayer Carol Crosby appealed, arguing that section 3-8-811(b)(6) is unconstitutional. The circuit court affirmed Mitchell’s certification of insufficiency. The Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ appeal and the cross-appeal, holding that the issues raised on direct appeal and on cross-appeal were moot because the November 8, 2016 general election has already occurred. View "Keep Our Dollars in Independence County v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of nine counts of first-degree battery. No appeal was taken. An amended sentencing order was entered reflecting that Petitioner was sentenced to 3240 months’ imprisonment. Approximately thirty-six months after an amended sentencing order was entered, Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal and asked that counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s motion for belated appeal and declared moot his motion for appointment of counsel, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of filing a timely motion within the time period allowed under Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(e). View "Eason v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Petitioner was found guilty of murder in the first degree and abuse of a corpse. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Now before the Court was 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. In his petition, Petitioner asserted, inter alia, that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation; and (2) the remainder of Petitioner’s claims were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Mother and Father divorced in 2005. In 2012, the circuit court memorialized an agreement by the parties raising Father’s child-support obligation to $6,005 per month. In 2014, Father filed a petition to reduce his child support payments on the grounds that there had been a material change in circumstances. In 2014, the circuit court entered an order reducing Father’s monthly child support obligation to $2,108 per month. The new support obligation was made retroactive, and the circuit court ordered amortization of the $27,279 overpayment by a further $1,000 per month reduction in Father’s payments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Father met his burden of proving that there had been a material change of circumstances. View "Troutman v. Troutman" on Justia Law

Posted in: Family Law
by
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and six counts of terroristic acts. Appellant was also found guilty of using a firearm during the commission of a felony on each count. On appeal, Appellant contended that the circuit court erred in not granting his motions for directed verdict on all charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s inference that Appellant shot at a vehicle with the intent to cause property damage; (2) Appellant had an independent objective to commit terroristic acts, and his intent related to the acts of terrorism, not to murder; and (3) therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the directed-verdict motions. View "Noble v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to second-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. Approximately forty-one months after the judgment in his case had been entered, Appellant filed a pro se petition for scientific testing of evidence under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005. The trial court denied the petition, determining that Appellant did not rebut the presumption that it was untimely filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the petition was untimely filed; and (2) the trial court correctly ruled in its order denying Appellant’s Act 1780 petition that Appellant had failed to demonstrate a ground for relief under the Act. View "Lewis v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Roby Lowery Stapleton was murdered in 1963. Her murder remains unsolved. In 2013, through the Keech Law Firm, Stapleton’s family made a formal written request to the Department of Arkansas State Police (ASP) for a copy of the case file and other materials relating to ASP’s investigation into Stapleton’s murder. ASP denied the request. Keech then filed a complaint against ASP asking the circuit court to compel disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) . ASP maintained that the material was exempt under FOIA because it was the subject of an open and ongoing investigation into Stapleton’s murder. The court ordered ASP to turn over the file, concluding that the case was not an “open and ongoing” law enforcement investigation and, therefore, the claimed exemption did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s finding that this investigation was not open and ongoing was not clearly erroneous; and (2) this case falls squarely within the purpose of FOIA. View "Department of Arkansas State Police v. Keech Law Firm P.A." on Justia Law

by
After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, raising two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, concluding that counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s factual findings support its apparent conclusion that Appellant failed to satisfy either prong of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, and those findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law