Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellants' motion for an emergency injunction that sought the removal of three members of the Eureka Springs City Advertising and Promotion Commission (CAPC), holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellants argued (1) Carol Wright's appointment to the CAPC violated Ark. Const. art. 19, 3, and (2) the appointments of Melissa Green and Harry Meyer to the CAPC violated Ark. Code Ann. 14-4-107(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly concluded that Wright's CAPC appointment was not constitutionally prohibited; and (2) the circuit court did not err when it determined that Green and Meyer were qualified to serve as CAPC commissioners despite being sitting council members at the time of their appointments. View "Johnson v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition.Appellant pled guilty to the unlawful discharge of a firearm and first-degree battery. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his sentence for discharge of a firearm from a vehicle was illegal on its face because it should have been listed as a Class B felony rather than as a Class Y felony. The circuit court concluded that Appellant's claim for habeas relief lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to habeas corpus relief. View "Rawls v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the grounds on which the trial court relied in entering the preliminary injunction had become moot.Plaintiffs were five Arkansas residents who had been receiving pandemic-related unemployment benefits through Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation prior to the State's termination of its participation in these programs. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants - Governor Asa Hutchison and Arkansas Division of Workforce Services Director Charisse Childers - lacked the authority under Ark. Code Ann. 11-10-312 to terminate the State's participation in the programs. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to reengage in the terminated programs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the grounds for the preliminary injunction had been rendered moot by the General Assembly's passage of Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 2021. View "Hutchinson v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asserted that Honorable Marcia Hearnsberger, a circuit judge, had not ruled on a pro se motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order in which Petitioner claimed that a sentencing order required correction of a clerical error, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the request.Petitioner stated that he filed the mandamus action because the circuit court had not ruled on his underlying motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the relief he sought. View "Golden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, dismissing Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and denied Petitioner's petition to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of thirty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matters depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. Petitioner later brought this pro se petition seeking coram nobis relief, habeas corpus relief, and correction of an allegedly illegal sentence. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to plead grounds for coram nobis relief, failed to file his habeas claim in the circuit court, and did not present evidence of an illegal sentence. View "Antoniello v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court setting Appellant's support obligation above the amount indicated by the latest version of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 10 - Child Support Guidelines, holding that the court erred in its calculation of Appellant's child support obligation.At issue before the Supreme Court was construction of new provisions in the guidelines setting support when a child's parents earn more than $30,000 per month. In this case, the court concluded that $6500 was an appropriate monthly support obligation. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by ordering support that exceeded the highest chart amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling constituted a clear error of law and that the court's findings were not consistent with the plain language of revised Administrative Order No. 10. View "Parnell v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for declaratory relief, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that Appellees acted in contravention of the statutes pertaining to his parole eligibility.After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and second-degree battery and sentenced to an aggregate term of 264 months' imprisonment. In his petition for declaratory relief Appellant challenged the determination of his parole eligibility by officials with the Arkansas Department of Correction. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the declaratory judgment action. View "Harkuf v. Marony" 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 establish sufficient grounds for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was found guilty of theft by receiving and fleeing and sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty-five years' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition Petitioner raised seven claims for relief. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner's claims either were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings or were without merit. View "Brown 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 none of Petitioner's claims established a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of two counts of capital murder and one count of a terroristic act. Petitioner later brought this coram nobis petition alleging that evidence was withheld by the State in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), trial court error, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petition, rendering moot Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. View "Stephenson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed upon Defendant in connection with his plea of guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and plea of guilty to being a habitual offender, holding that the circuit court did not impose an illegal, fine-only sentence in violation of the habitual offender statute.After accepting Defendant's guilty plea, the circuit court made specific findings for leniency and proclaimed a sentence of only a $10,000 fine and no incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a plain reading of the statute in effect at the time Defendant committed the crime permitted the circuit court to impose a fine, imprisonment, or both; and (2) the circuit court did not err in imposing a fine-only sentence. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law