Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that the motion was untimely.In 1990, Defendant was convicted of burglary and theft of property. Defendant was sentenced to forty years' imprisonment and thirty years' imprisonment, respectively. In his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Defendant argued that making the thirty-year sentence part consecutive and part concurrent was illegal. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although Defendant characterized his claim as one alleging a facially invalid sentence, it was not, and therefore, section 16-90-111 did not apply; and (2) under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), Defendant's motion was untimely. View "Prince v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.Appellant was convicted of capital murder and first-degree battery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant later filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that it was untimely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not proceed in the proper circuit court, and thus, the circuit court and the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to address his petition. View "Grant v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and dismissed in part an original action brought by Petitioners challenging the sufficiency of a state-wide petition to refer Act 579 of 2019 to the people of Arkansas on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot, holding that the petition was insufficient because it did not comply with Ark. Code Ann. 7-9-601(b)(3).Act 579 expanded the scope of the practice of optometry in Arkansas to permit licensed optometrists to perform certain procedures. Safe Surgery Arkansas (SSA), a ballot-question committee, filed with the Secretary its petition containing more than 84,000 signatures. The Secretary certified that the petition met constitutional signature requirements. Thereafter, Petitioners filed the instant original action alleging four counts regarding the insufficiency of the petition. The special master found that SSA lacked sufficient valid signatures to qualify the petition for the ballot. The Supreme Court granted in part and dismissed as moot in part the petition, holding (1) SSA's petition was insufficient because it failed to certify that its paid canvassers had passed criminal background checks; and (2) the remaining challenges to the petition were moot. View "Arkansans for Healthy Eyes v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Count I of Petitioners' complaint alleging that a proposed ballot petition's ballot title and popular name were invalid, holding that, in light of the holding of a companion case handed down today concluding that the proposed ballot petition was insufficient, Count I was moot.The Secretary of State certified a statewide referendum petition on Act 579 of 2019 for placement on the November 3, 2020 general-election ballot. Petitioners filed this original action challenging the proposed ballot petition and alleging four counts related to the sufficient of the petition. The Supreme Court bifurcated the proceedings between Count I and Counts II-IV. In a companion case, the Supreme Court granted the petition in part, concluding that the proposed ballot petition was insufficient. Because of this holding, any rulings on the issues in Count I were moot. View "Arkansans For Healthy Eyes v. Thurston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to issue the writ.Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and first-degree battery. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, asserting that his attorney and the prosecutor conducted a scheme to deceive him into entering a guilty plea. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's conclusory claims in support of the allegation were not a ground for the writ and that Appellant did not meet his burden of establishing that the plea was the result of fear, duress, or threats of mob violence. View "Addison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse and was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Defendant later filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging that the prosecutor withheld material evidence from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered or would have been prevented had the allegedly withheld information been disclosed; and (2) the circuit court did not err by not conducting an evidentiary hearing on the petition. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal by Citizens for a Better Pope County, a local option ballot question committee, holding that the claims set forth in Citizens' appeal were moot.After the Pope County Quorum Court adopted a resolution in support of a casino license application, Citizens sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the circuit court requesting an order prohibiting and county judge and quorum court from taking any official action to expressly approve a casino applicant without first presenting the issue to voters in an election, as required by Ordinance 2018-O-42. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. The day before the hearing on the motion Ordinance 2018-O-42 was repealed. The circuit court denied declaratory relief, concluding that Ordinance 2018-O-42 unconstitutionally conflicted with amendment 100 of the Arkansas Constitution, and further held that the mandamus request was moot. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal as moot, holding that, due to the repeal of Ordinance 2018-O-42, this Court's judgment on Citizens' claims would have no practical effect on an existing legal controversy. View "Citizens for a Better Pope County v. Cross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which Petitioner contended that circuit court judge Dion Wilson failed to act on a petition for a previously filed writ of mandamus and amended petition for writ of mandamus, holding that Petitioner was entitled to rulings on the petitions but was not entitled to rulings granting the mandamus petitions "outright."Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because the circuit court had not acted on the petitions, Petitioner was entitled to an order disposing of the matter underlying the mandamus petitions; but (2) Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his request that the underlying mandamus petitions be granted outright and that he be granted a hearing. View "Rodgers v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint challenging a referendum petition preventing Act 579 of 2019 from becoming law, holding that because of the resolution of the petition for referendum in a separate case, this appeal was moot.Act 579 permits optometrists to perform surgical procedures. Defendant, a ballot question committee, filed a statewide referendum petition preventing the Act from becoming law. Plaintiff, also a ballot question committee, was formed to defend the Act. Plaintiff filed a complaint asking the circuit court to enjoin the Secretary of State from counting the petition signatures because the petition did not comply with newly enacted Act 376. The circuit court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and concluded that the case was barred by res judicata. Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a decision decided today that the petition for referendum cannot be placed on the ballot mooted the issues here. View "Arkansans For Healthy Eyes v. Thurston" on Justia Law

In this action involving two initiative petitions proposing constitutional amendments that Petitioners sought to have placed on the November 2020 election ballot the Supreme Court dismissed in part Petitioners' petition challenging the Secretary of State's rejection of the amendments, holding that count three of the petition, which this opinion addressed, was moot.The Secretary of State dismissed the initiative petitions because Petitioners failed to verify that their paid canvassers had passed criminal-background checks. Petitioners then filed this original action, alleging three counts. The Supreme Court bifurcated the action, and this opinion addressed count three. Today, the Supreme Court concluded in a companion case addressing counts one and two that the criminal background affidavit was fatally flawed for both proposed amendments. The Supreme Court held that the issues in count three were moot because its judgment would have no practical legal effect on an existing controversy. View "Miller v. Thurston" on Justia Law