Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michelle Jameson received a conditional permit for a liquor store in Rogers, Arkansas. After Jameson sold one bottle of liquor, the Board granted approval to place Jameson’s permit on inactive status. Jameson subsequently applied to the Board to transfer her inactive permit to Christopher Moore at a new location in Rogers. The Board unanimously approved the transfer of the permit to Moore. Sarah Gildehaus filed a petition for judicial review. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding that Gildehaus lacked standing to challenge the Board’s decision and that, even if she did have standing, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in dismissing Gildehaus’s petition based on a lack of standing; but (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. In 2016, Appellant tendered a pro se pleading asking the Supreme Court to intervene and to direct the circuit court judge and circuit clerk to permit him to file his pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus and petitions for writs of mandamus and for them to act on his petitions. The Supreme Court treated Appellant’s motion for intervention as a writ of mandamus and ordered the circuit judge to set a hearing on his writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 40CV-16-44. View "Dunahue v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder, as an accomplice. In 2008, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. On the same day, Appellant filed a petition for scientific testing under Act 1780. The trial court denied relief. In 2016, Appellant filed a second petition seeking scientific testing under Act 1780. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed and filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, which rendered moot the motion, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the proposed testing did not meet the requirements of the statute. View "Bienemy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s third pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court in the case to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his third petition, Petitioner repeated the claims raised in his first two petitions seeking coram nobis relief. Because the Supreme Court already considered those claims and denied relief based on them, the Court declined to consider the claims again and dismissed the petition as an abuse of the writ. View "Wallace v. State" on Justia Law

Defendants in this case included a Union, a subsidiary of the Union, and John Does (collectively, Defendants) who conducted demonstrations to help current and former Walmart employees on issues related to their employment. Walmart filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging trespass and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The circuit court found that Walmart had met the requirements for a permanent injunction and a declaratory judgment. The injunction prohibited any non-employee defendant from engaging in any non-shopping activities on Walmart’s private property in Arkansas, and the circuit court declared that Defendants’ entrance onto Walmart private property for non-shopping purposes constituted a trespass. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt Walmart’s trespass lawsuit; (2) the circuit court did not err in enjoining Defendants from entering parking lots and sidewalks that Walmart does not hold the right to exclusively possess; and (3) the injunction and declaration are overly broad as to their scope in that they prohibit “all non-shopping activity,” and the circuit court’s order is modified to limit the scope of the order to those activities that were proven by Walmart to cause irreparable harm. View "United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of carrying a weapon in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-120. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circuit court erred in failing to obtain a valid jury-trial waiver before proceeding to a bench trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Appellant’s conviction, holding that, because the record revealed that there was no written waiver of a jury trial and no waiver of a jury trial made in open court, Appellant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Remanded. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty of aggravated robbery, theft of property, furnishing a prohibited article, and third-degree battery. 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 trial counsel. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant’s Rule 37.1 petition did not state and support with facts a ground on which relief under Rule 37.1 could be properly granted, and therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to vacate the judgment under the Rule. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of four counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church. The court of appeals affirmed. Seventy-two days after the court of appeals’ mandate had been issued, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it had not been timely filed. Seventy-three days after the dismissal of the Rule 37.1 petition, Petitioner filed a petition for review. The trial court denied the petition for review. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal more than thirty days of the date his Rule 37.1 petition was dismissed and now sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "Porchia v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and two six-year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with the life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus challenging the constitutionality of his sentence to life without parole. The circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for declaratory relief and provided no basis for a writ of mandamus to issue. View "Millsap v. Kelley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count each of first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to negate Appellant’s defense of justification was not preserved for review; (2) the circuit court properly instructed the jury as to the appropriate burden of proof on the defense of justification, and Appellant’s proffered instruction on the issue was not a complete statement of the law; and (3) the circuit court did not err during the sentencing phase when it permitted questions regarding Appellant’s past behavior. View "Kinsey v. State" on Justia Law