Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Eugene Butler brought this suit against the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, alleging that the University violated the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act (AWBA) upon terminating Appellant from his job as a police officer at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. The University filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Butler’s complaint failed to state a cause of action that was not barred by sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that the University was entitled to sovereign immunity because the complaint failed to state a factual basis for Butler’s claim under the AWBA. View "Johnson v. Butler" on Justia Law

In 1984, Appellant was convicted of two counts each of rape, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas asserting generally that there was scientific evidence available to show his actual innocence. The trial court dismissed the petition, and Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motions Appellant filed related to his appeal, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate clear error in the trial court’s decision to dismiss the petition. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed several requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory seeking copies of all evidence kept or obtained by the laboratory related to his criminal cases. The State Crime Lab denied Appellant access to his records for more than six years. Following the Supreme Court’s statement in Davis v. Deen stating that the State Crime Laboratory has no discretion to refuse a defendant’s request for evidence related to the defendant’s own case, the State Crime Lab still refused to release Appellant’s records to him. The Supreme Court granted Appellant’s request for an order directing the State Crime Lab to provide him with records related to his criminal cases and issued a writ of mandamus to provide Appellant with the evidence he sought. View "Hill v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder, two counts of attempted capital murder, and seven counts of committing a terroristic act. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction and an aggregate sentence of 165 years for the remaining offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude testimony that a third person had confessed to the crimes; and (3) declining Defendant’s request to provide the jury with instructions on lesser-included offenses. View "Friar v. State" on Justia Law

Kisha Donley was awarded permanent guardianship of M.B., the daughter of Kisha’s half sister, Temika Donley. One year later, Temika filed a petition to remove the guardianship, arguing that the guardianship was no longer necessary. The circuit court granted Kisha’s motion for directed verdict, concluding that the guardianship was still necessary and that termination of the guardianship was not in M.B.’s best interest. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it applied the wrong legal standard for the termination proceeding. Remanded. View "Donley v. Donley" on Justia Law

Chris and Anita Taffner were the adoptive parents of five children who came to their home through foster-care services and were adopted in 2009 and 2011 respectively. On January 2, 2015, the Department of Human Services (DHS) removed the children from the home as a result of allegations that Chris had sexually abused one of his children. On the same day, Chris was arrested for sexual abuse. On January 5, 2015, DHS filed an emergency custody and dependency-neglect petition. On May 19, 2015, DHS filed a petition to terminate Chris and Anita’s parental rights, citing as grounds the circuit court’s finding that Chris had abused B.T. and K.T., that Anita had not protected the children, that she still remained in the home, and that she had refused to submit to a psychological evaluation. Anita responded that the adjudication hearing was not a “meaningful” hearing, it was in violation of her due-process rights, and she had not been afforded effective assistance of counsel. Anita also filed a motion requesting that the circuit judge recuse from the case because “this Court’s conduct has raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.” The circuit court denied this motion. Chris filed a pro se “Motion for a New Lawyer” in which he requested that the circuit court appoint him new counsel. In his motion, Chris argued that his counsel had not adequately represented him in the adjudication hearing, asserting that counsel was not prepared for the hearing, that counsel had not called witnesses or made any attempts to investigate the claims against him, and that counsel had not informed Chris of his right to appeal the order. Chris' appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, stating that she and Chris “have a significant difference in strategy and tactics to defend this matter.” The circuit court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and appointed new counsel but did not make findings on Chris’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations. In the end, the Taffners' parental rights were terminated, and they appealed, raising a host of alleged errors with the termination proceedings. Finding none, however, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of the Taffners' parental rights. View "Taffner v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant James Corn appealed a circuit court order denying his petition to establish a special-needs trust pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A). Corn was disabled because of a head injury from which he suffered short-term memory loss. Because of the severity of his injury, he received Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Corn’s eligibility made him automatically eligible for Medicaid. However, SSI had an asset test which stated that Corn would become ineligible if he were to have assets of more than $2,000. Because of this, Corn’s partner, Ms. Yelvington, now deceased, established a special-needs trust for him. Yelvington also designated Corn as a beneficiary on life insurance policies and her bank accounts. There was approximately $260,000 that was not transferred into the special-needs trust created by Yelvington, and because Corn was designated as the beneficiary on these assets they would pass directly to Corn upon Yelvington’s death. Because these assets would be passing directly to Corn rather than through a special-needs trust, Corn would be ineligible to receive SSI benefits. In order to prevent this, Corn attempted to create a "D4A" trust. At the time of the circuit court hearing, Yelvington had passed away and her estate was in probate. Corn had not yet received any funds from her estate or from her beneficiary designations. In its order denying Corn’s motion for reconsideration, the circuit court found that the establishment of the trust would be against Arkansas public policy and that there was insufficient evidence presented to support that a special-needs trust should be established. The Supreme Court found that through his testimony at the hearing and by attaching letters from the Social Security Administration to his motion for reconsideration, Corn provided the circuit court with sufficient evidence of his disability. Therefore, the Court held that the circuit court erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence that Corn was disabled. The circuit court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for a determination of whether the proposed D4A trust met the requirements set forth in the statute. View "In re Corn" on Justia Law

Petitioner Rolandis Chatmon was in jail at the time of his applications to the Arkansas Supreme Court for a writ of coram nobis. He was incarcerated on three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, with a firearm enhancement, to a term of three life sentences plus 360 months’ imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a second pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and alternatively, for a writ of certiorari. Attached to the petition were: a letter of suspension and removal from office issued to Judge Michael Maggio, the trial judge in his aggravated robbery trial; a document reflecting that Chatmon’s case was transferred to Maggio’s court; Chatmon’s pro se motion for appointment of counsel filed in October 2012; and a letter from the Arkansas Public Defender Commission sent to Chatmon addressing complaints about his trial counsel. Chatmon contended that these documents, plus alleged comments the judge made with regard to Chatmon, reflected the trial judge's bias toward criminal defendants. Chatmon further asserted that this bias was the source of Maggio’s refusal to grant a request for a continuance so that a material witness and others could have been called. The Supreme Court had held previously that it would not exercise its discretion to permit a successive application for a writ of error coram nobis if the petitioner was abusing the writ by alleging the same grounds without additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ. Furthermore, the Court found that with regard to certiorari relief, Chatmon failed to demonstrate that there was no other remedy to redress his contentions that he was unfairly denied a continuance and the appointment of other counsel. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of coram nobis and alternatively for a writ of certiorari was denied. View "Chatmon v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Appellants Courtyard Gardens Health and Rehabilitation, LLC and others (“collectively Courtyard”), appealed a circuit court order denying their motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the claims brought against them by appellee Patricia Sheffield, as special administrator of the estate of Maylissia Holliman. Courtyard argued: (1) the circuit court erroneously ruled that Johnathan Mitchell, Holliman’s emergency custodian, did not have authority to bind her to the arbitration agreement; and (2) that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because of the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”). After review of this matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s ruling that the custodian did not have authority to execute the arbitration agreement. Because the agreement was invalid, the Court did not address appellants' second point. View "Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab. v. Sheffield" on Justia Law

Appellant Bruce Allen Echols was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to four concurrent terms of 360 months’ imprisonment. Echols filed a timely verified petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2015) and alleged that both trial counsel and appellate counsel1 were ineffective in litigating the factual and legal issues surrounding Echols’s arrest and the subsequent search of his residence. On September 24, 2015, the trial court entered its order summarily denying relief without a hearing. Finding that the trial court did not clearly err when it denied Echols' claims for postconviction relief, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Echols v. Arkansas" on Justia Law