Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, making numerous allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed and filed two motions related to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that the trial court did not err when it concluded that the conduct of both trial and appellate counsel alleged to be deficient by Appellant did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Nichols v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 that challenged his convictions in four cases. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner untimely tendered the appeal record, but the Supreme Court granted a motion for rule on clerk to permit the appeal to proceed. Here Petitioner filed a motion for writ of certiorari arguing that the record on appeal as provided to him was incomplete and that certain portions were missing and seeking to have the Court supplement the record. Thereafter, Petitioner filed five additional motions. The Supreme Court (1) remanded for a supplemental record in two of the four cases; (2) dismissed the appeal as to the other two cases; and (3) denied or declared as moot Petitioner’s remaining motions. View "Lukach v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. This appeal concerned Petitioner’s second petition requesting the Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that none of the claims raised by Petitioner demonstrate that there was some fundamental error at trial or that there existed some fact that would have prevented rendition of the judgment if it had been known to trial court and which was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. View "Hogue v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Thereafter, Appellant filed multiple pro se petitions for postconviction relief, without success. In his fourth pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Appellant asked the circuit court to reconsider allegations set forth in his 2004 pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Montgomery v. Louisiana. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the petition. View "Alexander v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as an accomplice to capital murder and kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for the murder conviction and to a term of twenty-five years for kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant then filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that her life sentence for capital murder was disproportionate to the crime charged. The circuit court rejected Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err when it concluded that Defendant received effective assistance of counsel; and (2) because Defendant failed to raise her arguments regarding her sentence at trial, she must show fundamental error, and the facts presented here did not involve a fundamental error. View "Swain v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner field a petition for coram nobis relief, alleging, inter alia, a Brady violation. The Supreme Court denied relief. Petitioner now filed in the Court a second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis. In his second petition, Petitioner set forth eleven grounds eleven grounds for relief. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner’s claims were either without merit, conclusory, or not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. View "McArthur v. State" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights to their three children, alleging multiple grounds against each parent. After a termination hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of both Father and Mother. As to Father, the circuit court concluded that DHS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s rights was warranted under three grounds and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the order terminating Father’s parental rights, holding (1) DHS proved that a ground for termination - the subsequent factors ground - existed by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. View "Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Thereafter, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to 720 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to the life sentence. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis in the capital murder case. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence with respect to both convictions. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to state sufficient grounds in support of his petition. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Eugene Pfeifer and the Pfeifer Family Limited Partnership #1 (Pfeifer) petitioned the City of North Little Rock to create Northshore Lane Multipurpose Municipal Improvement District No. 36. Pfeifer claimed to be the majority owner in the assessed value of the property within the district. Also included in the proposed improvement district were two properties owned by the City. The City’s attorney opined that Pfeifer’s petition did not contain the requisite signatures from a majority of owners and that the City was the majority owner of the land within the proposed improvement district. Pfeifer filed a complaint and a petition for writ of mandamus requesting a court order requiring the City to enact an ordinance to establish the proposed improvement district. The circuit court granted the petition and ordered the city council to make a finding that the petition was signed by a majority in assessed value of the property owners and to take necessary steps to establish the district. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of Pfeifer’s petition for writ of mandamus but modified the circuit court’s order to provide that mandamus is granted only to require the city council to make specific findings pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 14-88-207(a). View "City of North Little Rock v. Pfeifer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury found Appellant had used a firearm in the commission of that murder. At trial, Appellant filed a motion for new trial following the discovery of two Facebook posts created by two of the State’s witnesses. The circuit court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant challenged only the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the post was newly discovered evidence that would have materially changed the outcome of Appellant’s trial in his favor had it been available to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not satisfy the standard for newly discovered evidence. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law