Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, entering judgment in Petitioner's favor for the relief requested in his petition, and denying the Director of the Division of Correction's motion for summary judgment, holding that the circuit court erred.Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault. After the General Assembly passed the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act (FSMA), which contained parole-eligibility provisions that applied retroactively to Petitioner, Petitioner filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief seeking to resolve any uncertainty regarding the FSMA as applied to him. The circuit court granted Petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Board's motion for summary judgment, finding that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-621(a)(2)(A) applied retroactively to Petitioner's sentences. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of section 16-93-621(a) and by finding that Petitioner was parole eligible after serving twenty-five years' imprisonment. View "Arkansas Parole Bd. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the petition brought by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission claiming that Judge Carroll violated several rules of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, including breaching his duty to the public and undermining the fair and impartial administration of justice, holding that disciplinary action was required.In its petition, the Commission agreed to recommend a suspension without pay for ninety days, with thirty days held in abeyance for one year, and certain remedial measures for Judge Carroll's improprieties. The Supreme Court granted the Commission's expedited petition and modified the recommendation sanction by suspending Judge Carroll without pay for eighteen months, with six of those months held in abeyance. The Court further ordered Judge Carroll to perform an assessment and complete a plan with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, holding that, given the seriousness of the conduct at issue, the length of the recommended suspension was insufficient. View "Ark. Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm'n v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the circuit court did not err on Appellant's seven separate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Appellant later filed a petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 arguing that the circuit court erred on seven distinct allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Appellant's arguments on appeal had merit and that the circuit court did not err in denying postconviction relief. View "Gentry v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the order of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of rape, sexual assault in the second degree, and sexually grooming a child, holding that remand was required for entry of a corrected sentencing order in which Defendant was not assessed a cybercrime fee.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions for rape and sexually grooming a child; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to introduce certain evidence under the rape-shield statute, Ark. Code Ann. 16-42-101; and (3) the circuit court erred by assessing a $150 cybercrime fee because the State failed to meet the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-706(b). View "Hartley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of capital murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft of property, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions based on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it denied his directed verdict motion on the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circumstantial evidence in this case excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than Defendant's guilt; (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence autopsy photos. View "Cone v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the circuit court certifying the City of Gurdon's class-action lawsuit alleging that Suddenlink Communications unlawfully charged Gurdon and other cities in the state three fees for the cities' use of Suddenlink's services, holding that there was no error.Suddenlink, which provided telephone, internet, and cable services to Gurdon, assessed a 911 fee, an Arkansas High-Cost Fund Fee, and a franchise fee. Gurdon brought this action alleging that the imposition of the fees against the City was unlawful. Gurdon then filed a motion for class certification. The circuit court granted the motion. Suddenlink appealed the certification as well as the circuit court's refusal to first address Suddenlink's pending motion to compel arbitration before certifying the class. The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the arbitration issue was not appealable on an interlocutory basis; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the class. View "Altic USA, Inc. v. City of Gurdon ex rel. Honorable Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case after Appellant appealed a circuit court order granting in part and denying in part its motion to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel class members with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration, holding that remand was required.In this case involving several claims against a nursing home, Plaintiff moved to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel other class members with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration, a motion that involved arbitration agreements signed by thirty-three residents at admission. The circuit court granted the motion with respect to fifteen residents and denied it with respect to eighteen residents. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to make findings regarding its order denying Plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration, holding that, in order to conduct a proper appellate review, this Court must know the circuit court's rationale for its decision. View "Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal of a district court judgment finding him guilty of two misdemeanors, holding that there was no error.In its motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal, the State claimed that Defendant had failed strictly to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(c), and therefore, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Defendant timely filed the record within thirty days of the entry of judgment in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court acquired jurisdiction of Defendant's appeal upon the timely filing of the certified district court record. View "State v. Voast" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting class certification in this class action alleging that Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. violated provisions of the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when attempting to collect debt on behalf of Jacksonville Water Works, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mid-South argued, among other things, that the class definition was unworkable because it required individualized inquiry into when each potential member made his or her last payment and when the statute of limitations period expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the class definition properly identified class members by objective criteria; (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that a class action is a superior method for adjudication; and (3) Brittany Smith was an adequate class representative. View "Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's petition for postconviction relief alleging five grounds for relief from the judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment, holding that there was no error.The circuit court denied Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the only claims alleged in his postconviction motion, all of which it denied without an evidentiary hearing except one. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the performance of Defendant's trial counsel was not deficient and that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Arnold v. State" on Justia Law