Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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's claims did not establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court of appeals affirmed. In the instant action, Petitioner argued that the trial judge was biased and that newly discovered evidence indicated that he was actually innocent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's allegations were not within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se fourth 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 to issue.In his petition, Petitioner contended, inter alia, that there was newly discovered evidence entitling him to an evidentiary hearing and that the prosecutor coerced a witness to falsely testify. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner raised some of the allegations previously and failed to establish a claim for coram nobis relief. The ruling rendered moot Petitioner's motion to supplement the pro se fourth petition to revinest jurisdiction. View "Swanigan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition requesting the Court's permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to challenge his convictions, holding that the petition was correctly denied because Petitioner did not provide a meritorious basis for issuance of the petition.Petitioner was convicted of three counts of rape. In his coram nobis petition he alleged, among other things, that the prosecution withheld evidence of specific dates on which the victim stated the rapes occurred. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a potential error that would have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial. View "Hunt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Appellant of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and other crimes and sentencing him to three counts of life imprisonment and one term of fifty years to run consecutively, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for mistrial.On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for mistrial because certain testimony was so prejudicial that no admonition to the jury could have cured it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the testimony did not warrant a mistrial. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's illegal-exaction complaint against the City of Blytheville, Arkansas, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint.The City passed an ordinance calling for a special election to be held on a one-cent sales and use tax to be collected for fifteen months. The proposed tax was approved at the special election. Appellant later filed a class action complaint alleging that the excess revenue was an illegal exaction because the tax was approved in order to pay the City's debt to the federal government. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that, based on the wording of the ballot title, the City's use of the excess funds to pay payroll taxes was authorized and there was no illegal exaction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly utilized the enabling ordinance and ballot title in determining the approved uses for the excess funds. View "Carlock v. City of Blytheville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to compel the Arkansas Board of Parole to set aside the revocation of his parole, holding that the circuit court correctly denied the petition for writ of mandamus.The circuit court denied the petition on the basis that mandamus does not lie to correct matters that are discretionary. Appellant appealed and also filed a motion to supplement his brief. The Supreme Court denied Appellant's motion to supplement his brief and affirmed the circuit court's denial of his mandamus petition, holding that the circuit court correctly denied the petition because mandamus does not lie to control a public official's discretionary act. View "Martz v. Felts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis and audita querela, holding that Appellant failed to establish grounds for issuance of the writ.Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of capital murder. In the instant action Appellant asserted multiple claims for coram nobis relief. Specifically, Appellant alleged that the circuit court was biased, that the State committed a Brady violation, and that he was suffering from a mental defect when he pled guilty. The circuit court denied the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition for coram nobis relief clearly had no merit. View "Stocks v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Appellant's claims for postconviction relief that were raised pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that Appellant raised claims that were not cognizable in Rule 37.1 proceedings and failed to establish prejudice as a basis to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and abuse of a corpse and sentenced as a habitual offender. Appellant filed a timely petition for Rule 37.1 relief, arguing that juror misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and an illegal search violated his right to due process and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the only cognizable claims were the ineffective assistance of counsel claims that Appellant raised below and reasserted on appeal; and (2) the trial court did not clearly err when it found that Appellant had failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel's alleged errors. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

In this class action, the Supreme Court affirmed the class certification order and the supplemental order of the circuit court, holding that the certified class satisfied the requirements of commonality, predominance, typicality, superiority, and ascertainability.The circuit court's order certified the class as individuals who attended C-1 Truck Driving School in North Little Rock through Driver Solutions' "company-paid training" during a certain time period and did not complete one year of employment with the carrier. The circuit court then entered a supplemental order explaining the phrase "company-paid training." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that each requirement for class certification was satisfied in this case. View "Driver Solutions, LLC v. Downey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis filed by Petitioner, holding that Petitioner failed to state sufficient facts to establish a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).Petitioner was convicted of robbery, theft of property, and employment of a firearm to commit aggravated robbery. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner alleged that exculpatory testimony of two witnesses was suppressed in violation of Brady. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner did not state facts that established a Brady violation but, instead, alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. View "Talley v. State" on Justia Law