Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of being an accomplice to capital murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis or, alternatively, to recall the mandate. In support of his petition Petitioner argued that a supplemental crime-lab report contained material, exculpatory evidence that had been withheld by the prosecution. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the evidence was not withheld by the State prior to Petitioner’s trial and was neither material nor exculpatory. View "Bienemy v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and committing a felony with a firearm and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole plus fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which Petitioner alleged that the prosecutor withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation entitling him to coram nobis relief. View "Stenhouse v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of committing a terrorist act, attempting to commit first-degree battery, and four counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to an aggregate term of 1020 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 and a second Rule 37.1 petition, alleging in both petitions ineffective assistance of trial counsel, trial error, and prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court remanded to settle the record and for additional findings of fact, holding that the record was not complete so that the totality of the evidence could be considered. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s fourth petition requesting the Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner’s successive application for coram-nobis relief was an abuse of the writ in that he alleged no fact sufficient to distinguish his claims raised in the instant petition from the claims raised in his previous petitions. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and attempted first-degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole and an aggregate terms of 720 months’ imprisonment. Petitioner’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. Now before the Supreme Court was Petitioner’s second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner alleged no facts in his second petition that were sufficient to distinguish it from his first petition or to establish meritorious grounds for relief. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with an enhancement of 180 months’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later filed two petitions for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied both petitions. Petitioner then brought a pro se petition for writ of mandamus requesting the Supreme Court to direct the circuit judge to file and sign documents concerning an appeal of the order denying his second Rule 37.1 petition. The Supreme Court denied the mandamus petition, holding that Petitioner did not clearly establish a duty that the judge failed to perform. View "Airsman v. State" on Justia Law

Katie Stehle and Ernest Zimmerebner divorced in 2001. In 2014, the circuit court found that Stehle was in willful contempt for her failure to pay child support as ordered and granted judgment for an arrearage. Along with Stehle’s biweekly support obligation, the court ordered her to pay an additional sum to be applied toward the arrearage. In 2015, Zimmerebner filed a motion for contempt and body attachment, alleging that Stehle missed payments and remitted sums below the required amount. The circuit court subsequently increased Stehle’s child support obligation. The court subsequently found Stehle in contempt and required her to report to jail every weekend. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by holding Stehle in contempt without determining whether she had the ability to pay additional sums toward the arrearage; and (2) the circuit court’s order was too indefinite for Stehle to know how she might purge herself of the contempt. Remanded. View "Stehle v. Zimmerebner" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, possession of firearms by certain persons, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the time of the entry of the guilty plea, Appellant entered a drug court admission form stating that his sentence would begin if he were to be expelled from drug court. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment for his alleged violation of the drug-court program. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, arguing that he was deprived of due process from his expulsion from the drug court program without a hearing and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court violated Appellant’s due process rights by failing to hold a hearing prior to his expulsion from the drug court program. Remanded. View "Neal v. State" on Justia Law

Ethel Long filed a complaint against Simon Property Group and later filed an amended complaint substituting McCain Mall Company Limited Partnership as the actual defendant. Long served McCain Mall’s registered agent, but McCain Mall did not file a timely answer. The circuit court granted Long’s motion for default judgment. McCain later filed its answer. Long responded by filing a motion to strike the answer on the ground that a default judgment had already been entered. The circuit court granted Long’s motion. McCain Mall appealed, but one day before lodging the record in its appeal, McCain Mall filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the circuit court acted without jurisdiction because the summons was fatally defective, as it listed the wrong defendant. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that McCain Mall had another adequate remedy through the interlocutory appeal it filed. View "McCain Mall Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Pulaski County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellants, current and retired members of the Arkansas judiciary, contested the forfeiture provisions found in Ark. Code Ann. 24-8-215 and 24-8-710 that pertain to the Arkansas Judicial Retirement System. Appellants alleged that they wish or wished to seek reelection but that they elected not to because they had reached the age that continued service would result in the forfeiture of their retirement benefits. As relief, Appellants sought an injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutes do not violate amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution; (2) the forfeiture provisions of the statues do not offend the equal protection clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions; and (3) Appellants’ remaining arguments were without merit. View "Landers v. Stone" on Justia Law