Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's postconviction petition filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape and one count of terroristic threatening. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed amended petition under Rule 37 alleging six grounds for relief. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of Defendant's expert witness. View "Joyner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this interlocutory appeal brought by the State pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3 arguing that the circuit court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress medical records obtained through a prosecutor's subpoena, holding that the appeal was not a proper State appeal under Rule 3.The State charged Defendant with one count of negligent homicide after he rear-ended a vehicle, causing an accident that killed a minor. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a urine sample collected at the hospital and medical records that were obtained by the State, which included the results of a blood test taken as part of Defendant's medical treatment. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress, and the State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State did not have a proper basis to appeal. View "State v. Kirchner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree assault and sentencing him to thirty days in jail, holding that Defendant failed to perfect his appeal from district court to circuit court, and therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.On the thirty-ninth day from the district court judgment convicting him of first-degree assault, Defendant's attorney filed an affidavit with the circuit court stating that Defendant had filed a notice of appeal in the district court. The circuit court found Defendant guilty of second-degree assault. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that he failed to perfect his appeal from the district court to the circuit court because he failed timely to file the record or a proper affidavit containing certain facts for the circuit court to acquire jurisdiction under Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(d). The Supreme Court agreed and reinstated the district court judgment, holding that an insufficient affidavit filed under rule 36(d) is a jurisdictional impairment to an appeal from a criminal conviction from district court to circuit court. View "Collins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to issuance of the writ.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him in excess of the alleged mandatory maximum determinate of forty years' imprisonment for first-degree murder. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was sentenced within the permitted statutory range for first-degree murder he failed to state a claim for issuance of the writ. View "McArty v. Payne" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court held that Defendant was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal and that Defendant was indigent.Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault on a family member and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Due to conflicts between the allegations set forth in Defendant's motion for belated appeal and the affidavit filed by his trial counsel, the circuit court remanded the case for findings of fact with regard to whether Defendant had waived his right to an appeal and whether he was entitled to proceed as a pauper. After reviewing the record on remand the Supreme Court granted the motion for belated appeal and granted in forma pauperis status, holding that Defendant was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal and that he was indigent. View "Marek v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to allege cognizable grounds for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to forty years in prison. The case was reversed, and therefore, the prosecutor added a habitual-offender charge to the information. After a retrial, the jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder and sentenced him to sixty years' imprisonment due to his habitual-offender status. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging prosecutorial misconduct and that his sentence was illegal. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims did not fall within the purview of coram nobis relief. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the divorce decree and orders of contempt of the circuit court in this divorce case, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in calculating Appellant's child-support obligation at $800 per month and imputing income to Appellant; (2) did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony to Appellee; (3) did not clearly err in failing to consider a mediation agreement; and (4) did not clearly err in holding Appellant in contempt for failure to pay child support. Lastly, the Supreme Court held Appellant failed to preserve for appeal his remaining argument. View "Symanietz v. Symanietz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the court did not err by denying the petition without a hearing.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his Rule 37 petition, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on second-degree murder. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in summarily denying Appellant's Rule 37 petition. View "Riley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, Appellant submitted a request to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory regarding DNA testing. The circuit court ordered the crime lab to release the information. When the file arrived at the prison, it was confiscated by prison officials based on their determination that it contained contraband. In 2019, Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for conversion seeking to compel Appellees to release his crime lab file and monetary damages for conversion. The circuit court dismissed the case with prejudice and issued a strike. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly dismissed Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for conversion on the ground that Appellant had already obtained the crime lab file and that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Davis v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court expanded the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine when the minor brings a direct-action suit against an insurance carrier for uninsured-motorist coverage to cover direct-action claims when underinsured benefits are at issue.A minor brought a direct-action suit against an insurance carrier for underinsured-motorist coverage. The insurer maintained that the minor could not recover under Arkansas's parental-immunity doctrine and denied the minor's claim against her mother's policy. The minor then filed a direct-action lawsuit against the insurer. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas certified a question of law regarding the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine. The Supreme Court answered that the State of Arkansas recognizes an exception to the parental-immunity doctrine when the source of recovery is uninsured-motorist benefits under a motor-vehicle liability policy. View "Tomey v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law