Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a petition sought by Petitioners to vacate the determination of the State Board of Election Commissioners and the Secretary of State not to certify the ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the adult possession and use of cannabis, holding that Petitioners were entitled to relief.After the Board declined to certify the popular name and ballot title of the proposed amendment Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to certify the proposed amendment for inclusion on the ballot at the November 8, 2022 general election. The Secretary of State declared the proposed measure insufficient. The Supreme Court granted Petitioners' petition and ordered the Secretary of State to certify the proposed amendment for inclusion on the November 2022 general election ballot, holding that the ballot title was not insufficient or misleading. View "Armstrong v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's claim did not fall within the purview of habeas proceedings.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that the speedy-trial provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-95-101, was violated in his case. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were not within the purview of habeas proceedings. View "Green v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, Ark. Code Ann. 16-1120-201 to -208, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.Appellant entered a plea of guilty to residential burglary, rape, and other crimes. More than twenty years after he was convicted, Defendant filed this habeas petition, asserting that he was innocent and seeking DNA testing. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness; and (2) Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to new scientific testing. View "Mahmoud v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentences were illegal.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to eighty years' imprisonment. In his petition to correct an illegal sentence, Appellant asserted that the application of Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501(c) to enhance his sentence was illegal and that the enhanced sentence violated the prohibition against the ex post facto application of criminal statutes. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his enhanced sentence was an illegal sentence pursuant to section 16-90-111. View "Rainer v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101, holding that Appellant's arguments on appeal failed to raise cognizable claims for habeas relief.Appellant pled no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit rape and seven counts of possessing matter depicting sexually explicit images involving a child. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations failed to state a claim for habeas relief, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied and dismissed the habeas petition. View "Myers v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that there was no error in the trial court's denial of relief.In his postconviction petition, Appellant raised eight arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition, holding (1) Appellant's Rule 37.1 petition was timely filed; (2) Appellant's challenges to his underlying guilty plea and conviction were not properly before the Court in this appeal; (3) the trial court did not err in finding that the denial of Appellant's request for an irretrievable-depravity instruction was not improper; and (4) Appellant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "Elliott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce Defendant's sentence, holding that there was no error.In 1993, Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to a term of life in prison. Defendant was nineteen years old when he committed the murder. At issue was Defendant's postconviction motion to reduce his sentence, in which Defendant argued that Arkansas courts should expand their interpretation of the Eighth Amendment as it relates to sentencing young adults. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that no Arkansas law gave it jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence under the circumstances of this case. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes and his sentence of consecutive terms of life in prison for each murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the testimony of surviving victim Lajhonta Collier identifying Defendant as the perpetrator was erroneously admitted and that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant's pretrial identification was not constitutionally improper. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's complaint challenging the certification of the House District 25 (HD 25) Republican primary race by the Crawford County Board of Election Commissioners (CBEC), holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that it lacked the authority to transfer this matter.Appellant filed a complaint challenging the CBEC's certification, claiming that the HD25 Republican primary election results were unreliable and praying that the circuit court void either the CBEC's certification of the HD25 race or void the HD25 election. The circuit court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint was not filed in the proper county, that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that venue was improper. The circuit court further denied Appellant's oral motion to transfer the case to Crawford County. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly ruled that Appellant incorrectly filed her postelection contest in Franklin County rather than in Crawford County; but (2) abused its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to transfer the case to Crawford County. View "Harris v. Crawford County Bd. of Election Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a petition sought by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission for expedited consideration and report of uncontested sanction following its investigation of complaints against Pope County District Court Judge Don Bourne, holding that Judge Bourne's conduct warranted sanctions.Several complaints involving two counts were filed against Judge Bourne involving his conduct toward unrepresented litigants. Judge Bourne did not contest either count, waived a formal disciplinary hearing, and accepted the investigatory panel's recommended sanction of suspension without pay for ninety days, with seventy-five days held in abeyance for one year. The commission accepted the recommended sanction. The Supreme Court suspended Judge Bourne from the bench without pay for ninety days with seventy-five days held in abeyance if he agrees to, among other things, never again to hold judicial office after his current term expires, ordering that the mandate shall issue immediately. View "Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Bourne" on Justia Law