Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial in 2009, Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of his six-year-old step-granddaughter. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The petition was denied. In 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se “memorandum in support for the writ of habeas corpus” alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel at trial, that the State committed a violation of Brady v. Maryland, and trial court error. The trial court concluded that the claims in the habeas corpus request were not cognizable as grounds for the writ. The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s belated appeal from the order, holding that Petitioner did not file his petition in the correct jurisdiction, nor did he state a ground for issuance of the writ. View "Henington v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape involving a thirteen-year-old girl and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 600 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel and that the trial court erred by allowing an amendment of the nature and degree of the charges and by excluding a certain video. The trial court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant’s claims were conclusory and lacked sufficient facts to establish a basis for postconviction relief, and, moreover, Appellant’s conclusory allegations were based on claims of trial court error that are generally not cognizable in Rule 37.1 proceedings. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of capital murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of kidnapping. Defendant elected to forgo sentencing by the jury. The State did not seek the death penalty for the capital murder conviction, for which Defendant automatically received a life sentence without parole. The circuit court sentenced Defendant as a habitual offender to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the remaining offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, by making certain rulings, the circuit court did not deny Defendant (1) the right to self-representation, (2) the right of confrontation, or (3) the right to the assistance of counsel. View "Dennis v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to delivery of a counterfeit substance and delivery of a controlled substance. Petitioner later filed a pro se petition to correct or reduce his sentence. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioner timely filed a pro se notice of appeal but did not tender the record on appeal to the Supreme Court in accordance with the rules of procedure. Petitioner now sought to proceed with a belated appeal, a motion the Supreme Court treated as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record belatedly. The Supreme Court then denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not state good cause for his failure to timely tender the record to the Court. View "Billings v. State" on Justia Law

The facts related to this appeal stemmed from Attorney Theodis N. Thompson Jr.’s representation of Michael Baker on criminal charges. The circuit court found Thompson in criminal contempt for his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing and sentenced him to twenty-four hours imprisonment in the county jail. After Thompson served his sentence, he appealed, arguing that his right to due process was violated because he was deprived of proper notice of the criminal contempt charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the mootness doctrine did not bar Thompson’s direct appeal of his criminal contempt conviction; and (2) the State failed to establish that Thompson received notice of the accusation of contempt for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

In this opinion authored by Associate Justice Rhonda Wood, Judge Wood considered a motion to disqualify filed by Appellees asking that Wood recuse from hearing an appeal and any case involving Michael Morton or his nursing homes. Appellees argued that Judge Wood for Supreme Court Campaign Committee’s acceptance of contributions retained in 2014 from Michael Morton and his nursing homes created an appearance of bias of impropriety for a case that will be before the Court in 2017. Judge Wood denied the individual motion to recuse, holding that, considering the factors and the surrounding circumstances as well as her duty to sit, it would not be proper to recuse from this case. View "Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center v. Phillips" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. In 2015, Appellant filed in the trial court a second pro se petition for coram-nobis relief, alleging that he was insane at the time of trial, that the prosecutor withheld evidence of Appellant’s insanity in violation of Brady v. Maryland, and that his guilty plea was coerced. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant failed to state grounds for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. View "Millsap v. State" on Justia Law

After Tony Havner was injured in a motorcycle accident involving an overhead communications cable, Havner and his wife, Tina Havner, filed a negligence action against Northeast Arkansas Electric Cooperative (NAEC) and other defendants. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of NAEC. Havner subsequently filed a motion for entry of judgment and an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate with the circuit court. The court entered a judgment and a Rule 54(b) certificate, which was stamped as ‘presented’ and ‘recorded.’ The case was then submitted to the court of appeals. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order, concluding that because the judgment and 54(b) certificate was recorded but never filed, it was not entered as required by court rules. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals opinion, holding that, in light of In re Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2), the circuit court’s summary-judgment order was a final, appealable order. Remanded. View "Havner v. Northeast Arkansas Electric Cooperative" on Justia Law

In 1979, Appellant pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to imprisonment for the “rest of his natural life.” In 2014, Appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis or motion to correct clerical error or mistake in judgment-and-commitment order, alleging, inter alia, that the trial court made false statements regarding his sentence during the plea hearing that made his sentence illegal and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied Appellant’s claim for relief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he exercised due diligence in bringing forth his claims, and even assuming Appellant had been diligent in bringing his claims, he failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

In 1991, Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and several other offenses, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty years’ imprisonment. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion to correct time spent in custody. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Appellant’s request for jail-time credit against his sentence was a request for modification of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, and, as such, Appellant failed to timely seek postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while the Court would orindary hold that a request for jail-time credit was arequest for modification of a sentence, under the circumstances of this case, Appellant established that there was evidence of a scrivener’s or omission error on his judgment. Remanded for the trial court to examine whether the evidence was sufficient to entitle Appellant to relief pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b). View "Cason v. State" on Justia Law