Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property with a firearm enhancement. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that he was denied a fair and impartial trial because the jury and victims were all white and the trial judge was aggravated with him. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s decision to deny the requested relief was not clearly erroneous. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

On November 13, 2014, Defendant was charged by information with one count of theft by deception, a Class B felony. The State averred in the information that the offense was committed between June 1, 2011 and June 14, 2014. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations for Class B felonies had expired before commencement of the prosecution, that theft by deception is not a continuing offense, and that there was no fraud for purposes of the tolling provision. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the question of whether the statute of limitations was extended due to Defendant’s fraud was not properly before the Court; and (2) the circuit court did not err in dismissing the charge because theft by deception generally does not constitute a continuing offense. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

In 2013, Appellant was convicted of raping a young girl and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied relief, concluding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony from witnesses; (2) counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a sleeping juror; and (3) counsel was not ineffective for failing to call into question the credibility of the alleged victims. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of forgery in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed. The State filed a motion to dismiss or remand the matter, arguing that the trial court’s order was entered in error. The Supreme Court granted the motion and remanded the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court entered a second order that denied relief. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se motion to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not state good cause for the late filing of the notice of appeal. View "Richard v. State" on Justia Law

In 1978, Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the circuit court in three cases. Under Act 1993 of 1977, which was in effect when Appellant committed the offenses, he was not eligible for release on parole unless his life sentences were commuted to a term of years. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when he was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes committed when he was a minor. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed but, on rehearing, held that the sentencing orders against Appellant were facially invalid in light of the recent decision in Hale v. Hobbs. Appellant was subsequently resentenced. Appellant then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his 1978 guilty pleas on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel and a pro se motion for relief from the resentencing order. The trial court dismissed the pro se pleadings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter for an amended sentencing order in one case, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s pro se pleadings but that the sentencing order in 60CR-77-1934 was incorrect. View "Pennington v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Petitioner was convicted of one count of capital murder and sentenced to death. In 2014, the Supreme Court vacated Petitioner’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial, concluding that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial in 2002. The circuit court ultimately found Petitioner fit to proceed with trial. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial. The circuit court denied the petition. Thereafter, Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for issuance of a writ of certiorari. View "Newman v. State" on Justia Law

Sarah Gildehaus filed a liquor-permit application for her store. The Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board voted unanimously to issue a permit to Gildehaus. Christopher Moore appealed, arguing that the Board’s decision to grant the application violated a statutory prohibition of a permit holder either having an interest in more than one permit or directly or indirectly financially benefiting from the sale of liquor at more than one location. The circuit court affirmed, holding that Appellant had standing as a permit holder to challenge the Board’s actions, that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s decision, and that the Board’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Moore v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board" on Justia Law

Randeep Mann targeted Dr. Trent Pierce in a bombing. Dr. Pierce was seriously injured in the bombing. Mann was subsequently convicted of using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against a person within the United States, among other charges. Dr. Pierce and Melissa Pierce subsequently brought tort claims against Mann. The circuit court granted the Pierces’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, concluding that offensive collateral estopped could be applied as a result of Mann’s criminal convictions. After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury awarded a total of $122,500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to the Pierces. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in applying the doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel in granting partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the Perces. View "Mann v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a negotiated plea of guilty for breaking or entering and criminal mischief. The judgment and commitment order reflected a sentence of seventy-two months’ incarceration on the breaking or entering and suspended imposition of sentence of 120 months for criminal mischief. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The circuit court later amended Appellant’s previous sentence to run concurrently. The court then revoked the original sentence as amended and sentenced Appellant to seventy-two months’ incarceration. Appellant appealed, arguing that until his original sentence was modified it was void and could not be used as a basis for revocation, and therefore, his suspended imposition of sentence could not be revoked for acts that occurred when no valid revocation period was in place. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s revocation of Appellant’s suspended sentence, holding that the sentence imposed was not illegal. View "Limbocker v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated residential burglary, theft of property, and failure to appear. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial or on direct appeal. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the relief sought where Appellant did not state a ground for relief under Rule 37.1. View "Horton v. State" on Justia Law