Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted second-degree murder. Appellant received a combined term of thirty-eight years’ imprisonment for these convictions. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by failing to grant his motions for directed verdict because the evidence did not demonstrate that he was the perpetrator of the offenses and that the State’s theories of the murders were not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the jury’s verdicts were supported by substantial evidence. View "Howard v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to theft by receiving and was sentenced o sixty months’ imprisonment to be followed by a suspended imposition of sentence for thirty-six months. Petitioner’s suspended sentence was later revoked, and he was sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition. Now before the Supreme Court as Petitioner’s pro se motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record belatedly. The Supreme Court denied the request to proceed with the appeal because Petitioner did not state good cause for his failure to timely tender the record to the Supreme Court in accordance with the prevailing rules of procedure. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree battery. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of sixty-five years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 37.1, in which he asserted numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s claims that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "Liggins v. State" on Justia Law

In 1982, judgment was entered reflecting that Appellant pleaded guilty to capital felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2016, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis asserting that he was mentally incompetent at the time he entered his plea and that the was coerced and threatened into changing his plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease to a plea of guilty. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition did not state a ground to warrant issuance of a writ of error coram nobis and that Appellant was not diligent in bringing the petition. View "Matthews v. State" on Justia Law

Edward Snow, individually and as putative class representative on behalf of all similarly situated people, filed a complaint against SEECO, Inc. alleging that SEECO had underpaid royalties to plaintiffs, a group of landowners who had entered into natural gas leases with SEECO. Snow subsequently filed a motion for class certification. The circuit court granted Snow’s motion to present a class of Arkansas citizens who entered into lease agreements with SEECO for the production of natural gas on their property in the Fayetteville Shale. SEECO appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. View "SEECO Inc. v. Snow" on Justia Law

In this class action case, the circuit court granted class certification to a group of landowners who entered into natural gas leases with SEECO, Inc., DeSoto Gathering Company, and Southwestern Midstream Services Company (collectively, SEECO). After the court certified the class and the class certification was pending on appeal, the class representative died. The circuit court judge entered an order finding that Stephanie DeVazier was a qualified class representative and approved her as a substitute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prior filing of a competing class action lawsuit did not preclude this case from going forward; (2) the circuit court properly certified the class; and (3) DeVazier was properly substituted as lead plaintiff. View "SEECO Inc. v. Stewmon" on Justia Law

Appellees, three married female couples, filed suit against Appellant, the director of the Arkansas Department of Health, seeking a declaration that the refusal to issue birth certificates with the names of both spouses of the birth certificates of their respective minor children violated their equal protection and due process rights. Appellees also sought an order requiring Appellant to issue corrected birth certificates. The circuit court ordered Appellant to issue three amended birth certificates naming both spouses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that the case was controlled by Smith v. Wright; and (2) the circuit court erred in finding that Ark. Code Ann. 20-18-401(e) and (f) and Ark. Code Ann. 20-18-406(a)(2) facially violated Appellees’ rights to due process and equal protection. View "Smith v. Pavan" on Justia Law

Appellant was found in criminal contempt for failing to appear as counsel at his client’s jury trial. Appellant appealed, arguing that he could not be held in contempt for willfully violating the trial court’s scheduling order because he was under subpoena in another court and that the court’s decision to deny Appellant’s motion to delay the trial rendered the court’s underlying scheduling order invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the court’s contempt finding and that the failure to appear in one court due to a conflict in another can still amount to willful contempt. View "Valley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, who was convicted on a drug possession charge, filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s decision to deny a motion for an appeal bond and remand with directions for the trial court to set a bond. The trial court found that Appellant did not demonstrate that he had a substantial question of law or fact to raise on appeal. The Supreme Court accepted certification of the petition from the court of appeals. In response, the State argued that the record for the certiorari petition was insufficient because it did not include a written ruling on the motion to set bond. Appellant filed a petition the Supreme Court treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and remanded for a new bond hearing, holding that Wells raised an issue that was a sufficient question to satisfy the requirements of Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 6(b)(1). View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. The sentencing order reflected a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction and the imposition of a consecutive firearm enhancement of 120 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) initially calculated Appellant’s term of imprisonment to a total aggregate term of 240 months’ imprisonment but later changed Appellant’s computation card to reflect an increase in the time to be served to a term of 360 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a grievance, alleging that the ADC had illegally increased his sentence. The ADC summarily denied Appellant’s grievance. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review. The ADC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that its decision was not subject to judicial review. The circuit court granted the ADC’s motion. The Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the ADC’s recalculation of Appellant’s time was in error, holding that because the unlawful confinement of an individual under a sentence longer than statutorily permitted constitutes a denial of due process, the ADC’s decision was subject to judicial review. View "Ward v. Kelley" on Justia Law