Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Toland was arrested on a felony and appeared before a judge who set a sheriff’s bond. Someone on Toland’s behalf paid the ten percent required under the bond. Thereafter, Told and First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. filed suit against the county and two district judges. Appellants subsequently took a voluntary dismissal of their civil rights claims and then took a voluntary dismissal of their claims against the county. The judges filed a motion to dismiss alleging various affirmative defenses. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. Toland and First Arkansas Bail Bonds appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that there was no final order, and therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to address the merits on appeal. View "Toland v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. Appellant subsequently sought to proceed with a belated appeal arguing that he asked his appointed trial attorney at the time of sentencing to appeal from the judgment but that his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. After the findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted to the Court, the Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that because the merit of Petitioner’s motion for belated appeal rested entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, the Court accepted the trial court’s findings that Petitioner did not articulate a desire to appeal within the time allowed for counsel to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Siler v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit rape. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment on each count. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred by admitting into evidence, during the sentencing phase of his trial, conversations centered on “snuff” sex, which was described as killing someone during or after sex. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence, as the evidence regarding snuff sex was both relevant and not unduly prejudicial. View "Shreck v. State" on Justia Law

Wife appealed a decree entered by the circuit court divorcing her from Husband and contested the denial of her motion for reconsideration. Specifically, Wife argued that the circuit court erred (1) by deciding the parties’ property issues; (2) by modifying their agreement regarding custody and visitation without a hearing; and (3) by omitting from the decree the parties’ agreement for Husband to move to Northwest Arkansas. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s findings on the division of property and debts were clearly erroneous because the court did not conduct a hearing and, rather, accepted Husband’s version of facts and events in dividing the parties’ property and debts; and (2) the circuit court clearly erred by rendering decisions regarding custody and visitation without a hearing. View "Potts v. Potts" on Justia Law

Appellant, a parolee, was charged as a habitual criminal offender with simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest on the basis that officers entered his hotel room without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their presence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the knock-and-announce rule applies to parolees, but the exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy; and (2) despite the knock-and-announce violation, the evidence seized from Appellant should not have been suppressed. View "Lane v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm and that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the State withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported Appellant’s conviction for felon in possession of a firearm; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for new trial. View "Lambert v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape and theft of a van. Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for the performance of DNA testing seeking testing of a vaginal swab of the victim. Appellant subsequently amended his original habeas petition to include, in addition to his original request for DNA tests, a request for DNA testing of several items. The trial court denied Appellant’s original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as well as the motion to amend the habeas petition. Now pending before the Supreme Court was Appellant’s motion for belated appeal and rule on clerk. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared moot the motion seeking to file a belated brief, holding that Appellant could not prevail on appeal because, notwithstanding Appellant’s failure to rebut the presumption that his petition was untimely, Appellant failed to establish that additional testing would significantly advance his claim of innocence. View "Ka Makkali v. State" on Justia Law

Appellees, class representatives of property owners located in a subdivision, sought declaratory judgment that certain “tie-in rights” were unenforceable. During the suit, Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration with the unnamed class members. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded case number CV 14-618 to rule on whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between Appellant and the unnamed class members. The mandate issued pursuant to an opinion that ordered Appellees to pay Appellant $5,091 for costs in the appeal. Appellees subsequently filed a motion regarding costs and a motion to recall and amend the mandate. Both motions were denied. The Supreme Court recalled the mandate in case number CV-14-618 and directed the clerk to amend the mandate to reflect that each party is to bear its own costs, holding that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to award judgment for costs. View "Dye v. Diamante, a Private Membership Golf Club, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were class representatives of a group of property owners located in Hot Springs Village. Appellants filed suit against a private golf club associated with the development seeking a declaratory judgment that the provisions contained in supplemental declarations were unenforceable. The circuit court declared that the supplemental provisions were valid and enforceable and that there had been no breach of the declarations. The court also denied the disgorgement of any dues paid during the suit. Appellants raised eight points of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the circuit court’s decision. View "Dye v. Diamante, a Private Membership Golf Club, LLC" on Justia Law

A class of police officers and firefighters employed by the City of Conway brought a class-action complaint alleging that the City breached its employment contract with them when it failed to allocate sales tax revenues to fund salary increases. The circuit court certified the class action, finding that there were overarching, common questions that could efficiently be determined on a class-wide basis. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s class-certification order, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when if found the prerequisites of a class action. View "City of Conway v. Shumate" on Justia Law