Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and dismissed this matter in its entirety, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand, and therefore, its actions following remand were void.The Supreme Court decided a previous appeal in this case brought by Appellants seeking to join the enforcement of an ordinance passed by the City of Fayetteville. On appeal, the Court held that the circuit court erred in finding that the ordinance did not violate Act 137 of 2015, Ark. Code Ann. 14-1-401 to -403. At the time the case was remanded, the only claim before the circuit court was Appellants’ request for a declaratory judgment and injunction. On remand, however, the circuit court allowed certain parties to intervene and raise a new claim regarding the constitutionality of Act 137. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order denying a preliminary injunction, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand, and because the sole issue over which the circuit court properly had jurisdiction was conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in its previous opinion, the Court dismissed the matter in its entirety. View "Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal concerning legislative and executive privilege in Arkansas the Supreme Court held that the legislative and executive privileges exist in Arkansas.At issue in this case was whether Ordinance 5781, passed by the City of Fayetteville following the passage of Act 137, conflicted with Act 137. The Supreme Court held that Fayetteville’s ordinance conflicted with Act 137 and could not stand. On remand, the State moved to quash subpoenas of two state legislators and for a discovery order barring discovery requests for the production of documents held by the legislative and executive branches. The circuit court denied the State’s motions. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) this case was moot but the mootness exception applies; (2) the Speech and Debate Clause affords legislators privilege form certain discovery and testimony, and the privilege extends beyond statements and acts made on the literal floor of the House; and (3) the executive privilege also exists in Arkansas. View "Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from an order denying his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that the the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.Appellant lodged his appeal from a January 25, 2018 order denying his pro se petition fro writ of error coram nobis on February 28, 2018. In accordance with Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 17, Appellant was required to file the notice of appeal no later than February 26, 2018. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the notice of appeal was not timely filed and that no exception to the filing deadline for a notice of appeal was applicable. View "Mills v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner’s claims did not establish a ground for the writ.This was the second coram nobis petition filed by Petitioner. In the instant petition, Petitioner argued that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose to the defense a serology report and the victim’s death certificate. The Supreme Court denied the petition after concluding that the crux of Petitioner’s claim of a Brady violation was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that a Brady violation occurred in his trial. View "Buchanan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s writ of mandamus seeking to order the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney to authorize the release of information and evidence from Appellant’s criminal case from the Arkansas Crime Lab, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the writ.On appeal, Appellant argued that he was entitled to full access to the records and information he sought under Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-312 and that the statute obligated the prosecuting attorney to release the information. The Supreme Court held that issuance of the writ of mandamus was not appropriate because (1) the duty of the prosecuting attorney to disclose is mandatory upon the attorney’s discovery that evidence retained by the lab “tends to negate the guilt” or would “tend to reduce the punishment” of the defendant; and (2) the prosecuting attorney’s duty in this case was not ministerial, and Appellant failed to establish a clear and certain right to the relief sought. View "Linell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s fourth petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court in his criminal case, holding that the petition was an abuse of the writ and that Petitioner’s related motions were therefore moot.The Supreme Court dismissed or denied Petitioner’s first three coram nobis petitions. The grounds raised by Petitioner in his fourth petition were issues already raised in Petitioner’s three prior petitions for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to offer facts sufficient to warrant granting leave to proceed in the trial court for the writ. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and declared moot Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief, holding that the claims Appellant raised were not grounds for the writ.In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that the writ should issue on the ground that he was unlawfully detained. The Supreme Court held that the assertions raised by Appellant as grounds for the writ either constituted a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction or did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court, and therefore, Appellant failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s third petition requesting the Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that relief was not warranted where Petitioner reasserted the same grounds as in his previous petition but without providing additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ.In his second coram nobis petition, Petitioner raised claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel and withheld evidence and his lack of representation for those claims. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of his proposed attacks on the judgment were meritorious and therefore declined to permit a renewal of Petitioner’s application for permission to proceed with a coram nobis petition. View "Mosley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the motions filed by Warden James Gibson to dismiss Appellant’s appeal of the circuit court’s dismissal of his civil petition seeking an order directing the Warden to preserve certain evidence regarding an incident in which Appellant alleged he had been confined for sixteen hours in a cell flooded with raw sewage and to grant him additional time to file a brief, holding that the basis raised to dismiss the appeal was frivolous.Warden Gibson moved to dismiss the appeal because Appellant filed a handwritten brief. Gibson also requested in a separate motion that the Court stay briefing and grant him an additional thirty days after the decision on the motion in which to file a brief. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) under Ark. Sup. Ct. R 4-7(b)(1), briefs may be handwritten; and (2) Gibson provided no reason why he should not be required to file an appropriate brief that addresses the arguments and failed to provide adequate reasons why the Court should grant his request for additional time in which to submit a brief. View "Berger v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal of a circuit court order that dismissed his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus after treating the motion as a motion for rule on clerk, holding that it was clear that Appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal went forward.In his habeas petition, Appellant made several contentions, including that the judgment in his case was illegal on its face and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the habeas court’s denial of his petition, holding that Appellant’s arguments did not establish a ground for the writ. View "Davis v. Kelley" on Justia Law