Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Judge Mark Derrick challenging the constitutionality and legality of various practices concerning bond, the appointment of counsel, and the imposition and payment of fines, holding that there was no error.Appellants, who appeared before Judge Derrick, a state district court judge, as criminal defendants, were subject to court-imposed fines that they failed to pay, often resulting in jail time and additional fines. Appellants sued Judge Derrick in his official capacity, raising several challenges. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Derrick on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that judicial immunity prevented this Court from granting Appellants their requested relief. View "Mahoney v. Derrick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. After the Supreme Court remanded the case, Appellant's second trial resulted in a mistrial. Appellant then entered a negotiated guilty plea to manslaughter and robbery. In his petition for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief Appellant alleged that the Arkansas Department of Correction miscalculated his parole eligibility date and that his sentences violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and the doctrine of merger. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error. View "Harmon v. Noel-Emsweller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.Petitioner was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In his pro se second coram nobis petition Petitioner argued that evidence was withheld during his trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction, and that he was subject to a double-jeopardy violation. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner's claims failed. View "McFerrin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief.In denying and dismissing Appellant's petition, the circuit court found that the criminal information in this case was not deficient and that Appellant's counsel provided effective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Appellant's contention on appeal, the criminal information complied with Ark. Const. art. VII, 49. View "Halliburton v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111(a), holding that Appellant failed to established that his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner.Appellant was sentenced for murder in the first degree and attempted murder in the first degree to a total of 600 months' imprisonment. Appellant later brought this petition arguing that his sentences should be vacated because they exceeded the presumptive sentences allowed for the offenses and because he was not afforded due process. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Appellant's sentences were facially legal. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to state a ground on which the writ could issue.Petitioner was convicted of arson and sentenced as a habitual offender to 480 months in prison. In his petition, Petitioner argued that the record contained misinformation concerning two prior convictions that affected his eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner did not allege any recognized reason for coram nobis relief. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that Appellant's claims lacked merit.Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without parole. In his postconviction petition, Appellant argued, among other things, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Thomas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court acquitting Defendant by reason of mental disease or defect of one count of theft of property and two counts each of kidnapping and first-degree false imprisonment of two minors, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to require Defendant to register as a sex offender.The State charged Defendant with theft of property and first-degree false imprisonment. The circuit court concluded that Defendant should be acquitted due to lack of criminal responsibility and found that Defendant should not be required to register as a sex offender. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by declining to require Defendant to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by not requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender in its judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis, holding that none of Petitioner's claims established a ground for the writ.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 540 months' imprisonment. In Petitioner's pro se second coram nobis petition Petitioner alleged, among other things, that insufficient evidence supported his conviction and that trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, which rendered Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel moot, holding that Petitioner's claims were outside the purview of coram nobis proceedings. View "Carroll v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that there were no grounds stated in either the petition filed in the circuit court or in Appellant's appellate arguments on which a writ of habeas corpus could issue.Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree domestic battery and two counts of second-degree domestic battery. At issue before the Supreme Court was the circuit court's denial of Appellant's second petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which Appellant alleged that the Arkansas Department of Corrections illegally enhanced his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentences did not exceed the maximum penalty for the offenses to which he pleaded guilty, and therefore, the judgment was facially valid. View "Jefferson v. Payne" on Justia Law