Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing Appellant's complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that there was no error.Appellant was cited for aiding and abetting two individuals in his boat who were violating Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC) Regulation N1.03(B)(3)(i)(b), which prohibits using barbed hooks in designated areas, and Regulation 1.00-C. Appellant filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the two regulations are unconstitutional because they are in direct conflict with Ark. Code Ann. 35, 8. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, determining that there was no conflict between the AG&FC regulations and the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the regulations in question were not unconstitutional. View "Peveto v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Plaintiff's motion for class-action certification in her suit against Defendant, a car dealership, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion.Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging that the "mandatory notice of private or public sale" sent by Defendant repossessing Plaintiff's vehicle and informing her that the vehicle would be sold at a public sale failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code and Arkansas law and that the accrued interest rate was unlawful. The circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to certify the class based on the record before it. View "Rivera-Ceren v. Presidential Limousine & Auto Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Defendant of raping six-year-old M.H. and sentencing him to an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment without parole, holding that there was no prejudicial error.On appeal, Defendant argued that substantial evidence did not support the conviction, the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts under the pedophile exception, and that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting M.H.'s recorded statement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court. View "Warner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se habeas petition filed under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201, holding that a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to section 16-112-210 could not issue on the bases set forth in the petition.Appellant was convicted of commercial burglary and first-degree criminal mischief. Appellant later brought this habeas petition, arguing that he was actually innocent in that the State failed to comply with a discovery request, his right to confront witnesses was violated, and that he was denied notice of certain witnesses to be called by the State. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly determined that Appellant's claims were not cognizable under Act 1780. View "McLaughlin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that denied Appellant's request for injunctive relief preventing the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) from terminating his employment and dismissing Appellant's complaint, holding that the relief sought in this complaint was moot.After Appellant, a former tenured professor at UAMS, was terminated he sought an injunction. UAMS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Appellant's claim was moot and that UAMS was immune from suit. The circuit court denied Appellant's request for injunctive relief and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were moot, and therefore, dismissal was appropriate. View "Mahadevan v. Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas System" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In his petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the defense of provocation, among other things. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's finding that Petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel was not clearly erroneous. View "Coakley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to raise allegations that warranted coram nobis relief.Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his petition for coram nobis relief, Petitioner argued that his daughter had recanted her trial testimony, his daughter perjured herself, and his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ. View "Chunestudy v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that the claims raised by Petitioner did not establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of multiple drug-related offenses. After his convictions were affirmed Appellant brought this petition alleging that his attorney failed to represent him adequately and that his state of mind at trial amounted to "insanity." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims did not entitle him to relief. View "McKinney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that there was no error.Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. He later filed this petition, presenting five ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in failing to find that his trial counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's argument was without merit, and the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's petition. View "Brennan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss this complaint alleging that Defendants, in their official capacities, had terminated him in violation of public policy without a name-clearing hearing, holding that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's claims.After Plaintiff was involuntarily terminated from his employment he filed suit for wrongful termination and alleged a violation of his right to due process for failure to provide a name-clearing hearing. Appellants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that asserted an exception to the sovereign-immunity doctrine. View "Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Lewis" on Justia Law