Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and sentenced to ten years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in three ways. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, considering the totality of the evidence, Appellant did not show that counsel’s performance was deficient or that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. View "Doty v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and rape by forcible compulsion. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made but was, rather, the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief based primarily on its credibility findings. Appellant lodged this appeal and filed two motions in which he sought an extension of time to file his brief and also asked the Supreme Court to appoint appellate counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared Appellant’s motions moot, holding that Appellant failed to establish the first part of the Strickland v. Washington standard, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying relief. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

This case concerned the proposed constitutional amendment known as An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits. The Attorney General certified the popular name, as modified, and ballot title of the proposed constitutional amendment, and the Secretary of State certified the proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot for the November 8 general election. Petitioners brought this original action asking the Supreme Court to declare the ballot title of the proposed amendment insufficient. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the ballot title was insufficient. View "Wilson v. Martin" on Justia Law

This case concerned the proposed constitutional amendment known as An Amendment to Limit Attorney Contingency Fees and Non-Economic Damages in Medical Lawsuits. Petitioners brought this original action seeking an order to invalidate the proposed amendment, alleging failure to comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws, failure to submit the requisite number of verified signatures, and insufficiency of the amendment’s ballot title. This opinion addressed the sufficiency of the ballot title. The Supreme Court granted the petition to enjoin the Secretary of State from counting or certifying ballots cast for the amendment, holding that the ballot title of the proposed amendment was insufficient. View "Ross v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Attorney General issued an opinion approving the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment known as The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment of 2016. Petitioner, individually and on behalf of Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana, brought this original action challenging the sufficiency of the ballot title of the proposed amendment, alleging that the ballot title contains misleading statements and omits material information that is essential for a fair understanding of the amendment. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that voters in the upcoming November election will be able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposed amendment. View "Rose v. Martin" on Justia Law

Issue No. 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment to allow three casinos to operate in three counties in Arkansas. The Secretary of State certified to place Issue No. 5 on the November 8, 2016 ballot. Petitioners, individually and on behalf of the Committee to Protect Arkansas’ Values/Stop Casinos Now, brought this original action challenging the legal sufficiency of the ballot title for Issue No. 5. The Sponsors of the Act intervened in this matter and filed a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the petition, holding that the ballot title of the proposed amendment was insufficient. View "Lange v. Martin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to 480 months in prison. Appellant later filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief seeking to vacate the judgment on the ground that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, alleging six grounds for reversal of the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s finding were not clearly erroneous and that trial counsel’s assistance was not constitutionally deficient. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder based on accomplice liability and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction based on Petitioner’s confession that he had participating in the murder together with his mother and brother. Now before the Court was Petitioner’s pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on Petitioner’s allegation that the State committed a Brady violation. In support of the allegation, Petitioner attached an affidavit to the petition executed by Petitioner’s mother and stating that she lied about Petitioner’s participation in the murder. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition and the attached affidavit failed to establish a basis for coram-nobis relief. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal. Appellant then filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the judgment was facially invalid because the attorney representing him at trial and on appeal was ineffective and that the judgment was invalid because he was actually innocent. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that all of Appellant’s claims were grounded in ineffective assistance of counsel and were therefore not cognizable in habeas proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Appellant’s claims, whether based on ineffective assistance or on his actual innocence, were cognizable for the writ. View "Mitchell v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, a petition for correction illegal sentence in an illegal matter, and a notice of fraud/fraudulent practices, alleging that he was induced into pleading guilty and that counsel failed to present a defense. The trial court denied relief. Now before the Supreme Court was Appellant’s motion for transcribed record and for extension of time to file a brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law