Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from federal court about whether Arkansas law prevented Plaintiffs from pursuing their breach of contract claim when the first breach occurred outside of the state of limitations period, holding that a separate statute of limitations period began as each monthly oil-and-gas royalty payment became due.The contract in this case required monthly oil-and-gas payments. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants had been underpaying those royalties for several years. In response, Defendant raised the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. The federal district court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that, under Arkansas law, the existence of royalties outside the limitations period did not bar recovery for monthly underpayments within the limitations period. View "Pennington v. BHP Billiton Petroleum, LLC" 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 present a cognizable claim for coram nobis relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated residential burglary, attempted kidnapping, first-degree battery, and aggravated assault. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner set forth five claims for relief, asserting that the claims constituted violations of his fundamental due process rights. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the allegations raised by Petitioner did not set out facts that were extrinsic to the record and otherwise did not fall within the four categories recognized as grounds for issuance of the writ. View "Her 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 establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree battery, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and aggravated residential burglary. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. Petitioner later brought this petition for leave to proceed on a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to state sufficient allegations to satisfy issuance of the writ. View "Pitts v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Defendant's request for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief.Defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of four people. Defendant later filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction int he circuit court so that he may pursue a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, he argued that the prosecution withheld material evidence that would have prevented his convictions by bolstering his assertion of self-defense. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Defendant's proposed attack on the judgment was without merit. View "Kemp v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of rape, holding that none of Defendant's arguments on appeal entitled him to a reversal of his conviction.On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but did challenge other aspects of the trial court's rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it accepted the State's race-neutral justification for striking an African American juror; and (2) did not err when it barred an inquiry into the victim's prior allegations of sexual assault and psychiatric records from a private behavioral hospital. View "Turbo 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 a cognizable claim for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment as a habitual offender. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. At issue was Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of coram nobis, in which Petitioner challenged the testimony corroborating his part in the crime. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a claim that is found in one of the four categories that fall within the purview of coram nobis relief. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not giving a jury instruction on second-degree murder, a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder.Defendant was charged with first-degree murder for fatally shooting his wife. The trial court denied Defendant's request to instruct the jury on second-degree murder, finding that there was no evidence that Defendant intended anything but to purposely take his wife's life. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on second-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no rational basis for giving the instruction, and therefore, the trial court did not err. View "Marshall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant's pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA), Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 to -108, in which he alleged that Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) officials violated his constitutional rights, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint.Appellant sued Appellees in their official and individual capacities, alleging that they had violated his constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of his religion, access to the court, due process, and equal protection. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellees were immune from liability because Appellant failed to raise claims that demonstrated the deprivation of a constitutional right. View "Muntaqim v. Payne" 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 alleging that he was denied effective counsel prior to his criminal trial and that this violation of his Sixth Amendment right entitled him to coram nobis relief, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of two counts of capital murder and one count of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the capital murder charges. Petitioner later filed his coram nobis petition, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel did not support issuance of the writ of error coram nobis. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no ground in the petition on which the writ could issue.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Appellant appeared to challenge the validity of the statute pertaining to the offense of first-degree murder, the arrest warrant, the information, and the entry of the judgment of conviction. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not state grounds on which a writ of habeas corpus could issue. View "Fuller/Akbar v. Payne" on Justia Law