Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's fourth pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief.In his petition, Appellant alleged that he was charged by information with three separate counts of rape under the same docket number but was wrongfully tried in three separate trials. Appellant further alleged that his rape convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that Appellant's claims were without merit. View "Williams v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's employment discrimination complaint against Mercy Hospital Rogers, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA), Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 to -108.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff failed to plead that Mercy made any false representations of material fact sufficient to sustain a fraud action; (2) because Plaintiff failed to state an exception to the at-will doctrine, the circuit court properly dismissed Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim; and (3) given the circuit court's lack of factual development on the issue, the Supreme Court cannot determine whether Mercy is a religious organization entitled to the ACRA religious-organization exemption, and therefore, remand was required. View "Jenkins v. Mercy Hospital Rogers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court decree quieting and confirming title in 173.5 acres of Lee County property in favor of Appellees in this case, holding that the circuit court's findings were clearly erroneous.Appellants filed a partition petition in the circuit court. Appellees filed a counterclaim to quiet title, asserting that they owned the property through adverse possession. The circuit court entered a decree quieting and confirming title in favor of Appellees and declaring all other claims null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cotenants of the property were entitled to actual notice of Appellees' adverse claim to the property and that Appellees did not meet the actual notice requirement. View "Trice v. Trice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion to correct clerical errors in his sentencing order, holding that Appellant's sentencing order contained a clerical error.In his motion to correct clerical errors in his sentencing order, Appellant alleged that his sentencing order contained (1) an inaccurate criminal history score, (2) the wrong presumptive sentence, and (3) the incorrect date of his plea hearing. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that these issues were substantive rather than clerical. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) as to the first two alleged errors, the circuit court correctly denied Appellant's motion; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to enter an order nunc pro tunc correcting the third alleged clerical error. View "Wood v. State" 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 was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of six felony offenses, including aggravated residential burglary. In his habeas petition, Appellant alleged that his judgment of conviction was void because the trial judge failed to sign the sentencing order, in contravention of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 8. The circuit court dismissed the claim on the grounds that Appellant's sentencing order was electronically signed and filed in compliance with Administrative Order No. 21. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claim constituted an assertion of trial error that was not cognizable in habeas proceedings. View "Thompson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petitions for writ of habeas corpus, to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis, and to recall the mandate, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of capital murder in furtherance of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed the petitions at issue on appeal, making several claims. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petitions for habeas relief, coram nobis relief, and to recall the mandate, holding that none of Petitioner's claims had merit. View "Wells v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition and amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's claim did not establish a ground for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner later brought a pro se second petition and an amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis, asserting that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that Petitioner's claims did not entitle him to relief. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Father's motion for modification of custody of the parties' daughter, holding that the court did not err in modifying the previous custody order after finding that Father's change in employment and move to Little Rock constituted a material change in circumstances.A previous order of the circuit court awarded joint custody of the child to the parties and provided a specific visitation schedule. Father later filed an amended complaint for contempt and for modification. The circuit court found that Mother was not in contempt of court but concluded that Father's change in employment and move to Little Rock constituted a material change in circumstances that warranted modification of child custody to grant Father equal time with the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's decision to reallocate time was not an abuse of discretion. View "Nalley v. Adams" on Justia Law