Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to prove that she possessed a "usable amount" of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Appellant's motion for a directed verdict. View "Kolb v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se motion to recall the mandate issued by the Supreme Court on direct appeal, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and his motion for joinder of claims, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his motion to recall the mandate, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and also brought a Brady claim. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish extraordinary circumstances sufficient to recall the mandate; (2) Petitioner must file his writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court; and (3) Petitioner did not establish that he was entitled to joinder of claims. View "Anderson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that Appellant was not entitled to a wage-loss award in addition to his impairment rating because Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas (AAA) extended to him a bona fide offer of employment, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission's decision.Appellant was driving an AAA van that overturned, injuring Appellant. An ALJ determined that Appellant was entitled to a sixty percent wage-loss award and that Appellees made no bona fide job offer of employment because the position and wages were not clear. The Commission reversed, concluding that any wage-loss award was precluded because AAA made a bona fide and reasonable obtainable job offer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that AAA did not meet its burden to prove that Appellant was offered employment at wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wage at the time of the accident. View "Calhoun v. Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction and finding that the entirety of Ark. Code Ann. 7-9-601(b) is unconstitutional, holding that the circuit court did not abuse abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.Petitioners filed a complaint arguing that section 7-9-601(b)'s requirements requiring sponsors of initiatives to obtain federal background checks from the Arkansas State Police are unconstitutional and should be enjoined. The circuit court granted Petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the entirety of section 7-9-601(b) is unconstitutional and enjoining Respondents from applying its provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would result in the absence of an injunction. View "Thurston v. Safe Surgery Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree that awarded Rhonda Marlene Cherry permanent alimony and a subsequent order that found William Cherry in contempt for failing to pay the full amount of alimony ordered, holding that the circuit court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not reducing or eliminating the amount of alimony that Rhonda was to receive; (2) did not clearly err in holding William in contempt; (3) did not clearly err in finding that annuities from a personal injury settlement were not divisible as marital property; and (4) did not err in failing to order William to purchase a life insurance policy. View "Cherry v. Cherry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking scientific testing of evidence from his 1996 criminal case, holding that the circuit court did not err.In 1996, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2012, Defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780, asserting that he was actually innocent of the murder and seeking DNA testing on a red shirt. The circuit court denied the petition. In 2020, Appellant filed a motion to file a second or successive petition for good cause seeking scientific testing pursuant o 16-112-201 through 16-112-208. The circuit court denied the petition as successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that additional testing would significantly advance his claim of innocence. View "Hussey v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition to proceed in forma paupers in connection with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Appellant failed to state a colorable cause of action.Appellant was convicted of three counts of unlawful discharge of a vehicle and was sentenced as a habitual offender to seventy-two years' imprisonment. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief based on insufficient evidence supporting a firearm enhancement and an alleged double jeopardy violation. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition clearly failed to allege a colorable cause of action. View "Commons v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.Appellant pled guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentencing order was illegal on its face because the prosecutor made a notation that Appellant was not eligible for parole pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 16-93-609 applied to Appellant's conviction and that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentence were illegal. View "Flow v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition and in finding of an abuse of the writ.Appellant filed multiple postconviction actions challenging his sentence. Less than thirty days after the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant filed the instant pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court dismissed the petition and found an abuse of the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied and dismissed Appellant's habeas petition. View "Anderson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Appellant's petition for ineffective assistance of counsel filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of aggravated residential burglary and sentenced to life in prison. In his Rule 37 postconviction petition, Appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective on ten grounds. The circuit court denied the petition after holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was provided constitutionally effective assistance of counsel, and therefore, his petition for postconviction relief failed. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law