Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a prisoner, brought his third petition seeking to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his third petition, Petitioner reiterated claims made in his two previous error coram nobis petitions and made an additional claim that counsel was ineffective for not presenting mitigating evidence based on psychological evidence of Petitioner’s mental condition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that, to the extent that Petitioner may have raised any new claim, it provided no basis for the writ. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty of multiple counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and was sentenced to a total of 864 months’ imprisonment. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Petitioner made numerous conclusory allegations that investigators gave false and misleading testimony to the court and to the jury. Petitioner also contended that his right to speedy trial was violated and that police withheld evidence that was favorable to the accused. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for the writ. View "Clemmons v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a guilty plea to four felony offenses. Appellant later filed a pro se “belated motion to retract” his guilty plea on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court treated the motion as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, held that the motion was without merit, and denied relief. Appellant lodged an appeal. Now before the Court were several motions related to the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thus mooting the motions, holding that Appellant failed to abide by the requirements of Rule 37.1(c), rendering his motion to retract his plea and this appeal subject to summary dismissal. View "Barnes v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a guilty plea to capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing, inter alia, that he was incompetent when he entered the plea and that the plea was coerced. The trial court denied the petition after a hearing. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a motion to supplement the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared moot the motion, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail if the proceeding went forward because the claims raised by Appellant that were within the purview of the writ failed to establish that the writ should issue. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Ordinance 5781, entitled “An Ordinance To Ensure Uniform Nondiscrimination Protections Within The City of Fayetteville For Groups Already Protected To Varying Degrees Throughout State Law.” After the Fayetteville City Council passed the Ordinance, Appellants filed a complaint and a motion for declaratory judgment, arguing that Ordinance 5781 violates Act 137 of 2015, the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act. Thereafter, the Ordinance was approved by voters in a special election. The circuit court concluded that the Ordinance did not violate Act 137. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ordinance 4781 violated the plain wording of Act 137 by extending discrimination laws in the City of Fayetteville to include two classifications not previously included under state law, thus creating a direct inconsistency between state and municipal law. View "Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault and rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. Thereafter, Defendant filed original and amended petitions for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court granted the original and amended petitions for postconviction relief, concluding that counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the court was unable to say that counsel’s failures did not affect the outcome of the sentencing phase. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court’s finding of prejudice was clearly erroneous. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and second-degree battery and was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent terms of life and 180 months’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that his sentences were inappropriately enhanced under the applicable statute. The circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner later filed this motion requesting permission to proceed with a belated appeal of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion because it was clear the appeal was without merit, holding that none of Petitioner’s claims established a factual basis to support his allegations that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was facially invalid. View "Morgan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced under a firearm enhancement provision to a total of 540 months’ imprisonment. Now before the Supreme Court were Petitioner’s pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and a motion for appointment of counsel. In support of his claim for coram-nobis relief, Petitioner argued that he was incompetent at the time of trial. The Supreme Court denied the petition, thus mooting the motion for appointment of counsel, holding that Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption that the judgment was valid and failed sufficiently to demonstrate that he acted with diligence in pursuing his claim. View "Hutchinson v. State" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded custody of the parties’ twin boys, and Father was awarded visitation. Both parties later sought an award of primary custody, and Mother requested permission to relocate with the children to Florida. After a hearing, the court entered its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” which included construing an agreed order as creating a joint custody arrangement and denying Mother’s request to relocate. The resulting order was entered on August 27, 2015. Mother filed a notice of appeal. The court of appeals found that the notice of appeal was fatally deficient as to the custody issues for failing to designate the August 27 final custody order. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and remanded, holding that the notice of appeal substantially complied with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) and therefore was not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. View "Emis v. Emis" on Justia Law

In this garnishment proceeding, the clerk of court issued a writ of garnishment against Cardinal Health. The circuit court set a hearing for June 1, 2015. Cardinal Health did not receive notice of the hearing and did not appear at the hearing. After the hearing, the circuit court issued an order to pay for $26,874. Cardinal Health filed a motion for relief or, in the alternative, an extension of the time to appeal. The circuit court denied the motion. Cardinal Health then appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s denial of Cardinal Health’s motion for relief from the order to pay and vacated the proceedings in the garnishment action that occurred since the defective notice, holding that Cardinal Health’s due process rights were violated when the circuit court entered an order to pay against it during the June 1, 2015 hearing for which Cardinal Health received no notice. View "Cardinal Health v. Beth's Bail Bonds Inc." on Justia Law