Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that charging Appellant in an amendment to the information originally filed in his brother’s case did not deprive the trial court of either subject-matter or personal jurisdiction.Appellant was not personally charged in an original felony information, but, rather, Appellant’s name was added to an amendment to the felony information that originally charged only his brother with the offenses of which Appellant was later convicted. As grounds for issuance of the writ, Appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment of conviction because he was charged in an amendment to the felony information that charged his brother. The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal of Appellant’s petition, holding that charging Appellant in an amendment to the information charging his brother did not deprive the trial court of either subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. View "Anderson v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the petition was without merit.As grounds for issuance of the writ, Petitioner alleged that the prosecution withheld evidence that two men pleaded guilty to the murder for which Petitioner had been convicted. The Supreme Court held that because the transcript attached to Petitioner’s coram nobis petition did not contain facts that would have prevented the rendition of the guilty verdict but, rather, confirmed Petitioner’s guilt and because the guilty plea at issue occurred six years after Petitioner was tried for capital murder, Petitioner was not entitled to coram nobis relief. View "Dednam v. State" on Justia Law

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 failed to demonstrate in the petition that the writ should issue.In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner asserted that the prosecution withheld material evidence during the trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that his accomplice confessed by pleading guilty. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claim of a Brady violation; and (2) the nature of Petitioner’s second argument failed to establish a ground for issuance of the writ. View "Cunningham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that none of Appellant’s claims merited postconviction relief under Rule 37.Appellant was convicted of drug-related charges. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant then filed his Rule 37 petition, alleging that his attorney provided ineffective assistance and trial error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying relief; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for representation in his Rule 37 proceedings. View "Lane v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief challenging the guilty plea that he entered in 1995, holding that there was no ground stated in the petition on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued.In 1995, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that the writ should issue because, at the time he entered the plea, he understood that he would be sentenced to thirty-two years in prison. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court also dismissed the petition, holding that Appellant’s allegations should have been brought in a timely petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. View "Love v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of an order that set a partial filing fee of twenty dollars with respect to Appellant’s pro se civil complaint in tort against four persons, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the motion for reconsideration.The circuit court denied Appellant’s request for reconsideration because it was not timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not ask for reconsideration of the circuit court’s order until 155 days after the order had been entered, Appellant’s motion was untimely, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying it. View "Whitney v. Wells" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of an order that set a partial filing fee of thirty-five dollars with respect to Appellant’s pro se civil complaint in tort against the Washington County Sheriff and others, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the motion for reconsideration.The circuit court denied Appellant’s request for reconsideration because it was not timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not ask for reconsideration of the circuit court’s order until 197 days after the order had been entered, Appellant’s motion was untimely, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying it. View "Whitney v. Washington County Sheriff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of an order that set a partial filing fee of twenty dollars with respect to Appellant’s pro se civil complaint in tort against one person, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the motion for reconsideration.The circuit court denied Appellant’s request for reconsideration because it was not timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not ask for reconsideration of the circuit court’s order until 155 days after the order had been entered, Appellant’s motion was untimely, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying it. View "Whitney v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this matter, in which Appellant appealed the circuit court’s denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, to the circuit court, holding that further findings from the circuit court were necessary for this Court’s review.Because the circuit court found that Appellant had established that he was indigent but had failed to state a colorable cause of action in the habeas petition Appellant was required to submit the filing fee for the petition. The Supreme Court remanded for the circuit court to make specific findings as to why Appellant’s claim did not state a colorable cause of action and otherwise complied with Ark. R. Civ. P. 72. View "Whitney v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of an order that set a partial filing fee of twenty dollars with respect to Appellant’s pro se civil complaint in tort against four persons, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the motion for reconsideration.The circuit court denied Appellant’s request for reconsideration because it was not timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant did not ask for reconsideration of the circuit court’s order until 155 days after the order had been entered, Appellant’s motion was untimely, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying it. View "Whitney v. Jenkins" on Justia Law