Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that there were no grounds stated in either the petition filed in the circuit court or in Appellant's appellate arguments on which a writ of habeas corpus could issue.Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree domestic battery and two counts of second-degree domestic battery. At issue before the Supreme Court was the circuit court's denial of Appellant's second petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which Appellant alleged that the Arkansas Department of Corrections illegally enhanced his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentences did not exceed the maximum penalty for the offenses to which he pleaded guilty, and therefore, the judgment was facially valid. View "Jefferson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis, holding that none of Petitioner's claims established a ground for the writ.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 540 months' imprisonment. In Petitioner's pro se second coram nobis petition Petitioner alleged, among other things, that insufficient evidence supported his conviction and that trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, which rendered Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel moot, holding that Petitioner's claims were outside the purview of coram nobis proceedings. View "Carroll v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition to proceed in forma pauperis in circuit court alleging that he was entitled to judicial review of a disciplinary action against him, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellant, an inmate, assaulted and punched a correctional officer and had access to a cell phone. The Arkansas Department of Corrections found Appellant guilty of disciplinary violations and transferred him to the Varner Supermax Unit. Appellant filed a petition to proceed in forma paupers with a corresponding petition for judicial review, challenging the disciplinary procedures. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had no basis to proceed in forma pauperis. View "Muntaqim v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing and denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a Grant County capital murder conviction and a Ouachita county first-degree murder conviction, holding that there was no error.In his petition, Appellant contended that he was "charged and prosecuted on unconstitutionally vague, void, and invalid insufficient criminal informations" and raised claims regarding sufficiency of the evidence, trial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper jury instructions. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Appellant's claims merited issuance of the writ, and the circuit court did not clearly err by declining to issue the writ. View "Hill v. Kelley" 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 Appellant failed to raise a claim that would warrant issuance of the writ.Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. In his habeas petition, Appellant alleged that his conviction was void because the charging information did not reflect his full name, thus depriving the trial court of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's defective information claim was not cognizable in habeas proceedings. View "Rayford v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se third petition and amended 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 convicted of first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his third coram nobis petition Petitioner alleged, among other things, that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) by withholding the pretrial statement of a potential witness and the criminal history of a witness for the prosecution. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation; and (2) Petitioner's remaining claims did not provide grounds for issuance of the writ of error coram nobis. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for continuance.Defendant was convicted of one count of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for continuance. View "Beard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the circuit court's jurisdiction to enter the sentencing order. The circuit court dismissed the habeas action for lack of probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it dismissed Defendant's habeas petition for a want of probable cause. View "Jackson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court ordering certain messages to be released because they constituted "public records" pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-101 et seq., holding that the circuit court clearly erred.While Mark Myers was employed as director of the Department of Information Systems (DIS) and Jane Doe was employed by a company that did business with DIS the two developed an intimate personal relationship. After legislative audit disclosed that Myers was under investigation for improperly authorizing $8.2 million for the purchase of equipment from a vendor represented by Doe, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. submitted its FOIA request seeking correpondence between Myers and any representatives of Cisco Systems. Myers filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the Secretary of Transportation and Shared Services from releasing Blackberry Messenger between Myers and Doe. The circuit court concluded that the messages were public records and that the public had a right to their content. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by not determining whether each individual message met the definition of a "public record." View "Myers v. Fecher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellants' motion to set aside an order probating their father's will and appointing their stepmother, Appellee, as personal representative of their father's estate, holding that sufficient evidence supported the circuit court's decision.In Appellants' motion, Appellants also contested the validity of their father's will and alleged that Appellee unduly influenced their father to dilute Appellants' share of an annuity, payable upon his death. The circuit court determined that the will was valid and that there was no undue influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the circuit court's conclusions. View "Haverstick v. Haverstick" on Justia Law