Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner failed to state a ground on which the writ could issue.Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to 600 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. In his second petition for coram nobis relief, Petitioner argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel both at trial and on direct appeal and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a ground on which the writ could issue. View "Sims v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and seeking the appointment of postconviction counsel, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a cognizable claim for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus a term of 180 months. The Supreme Court affirmed. In the instant coram nobis petition, Petitioner argued that he was entitled to relief due to a coerced guilty plea, the failure of the prosecutor or his counsel to advise him of the spousal privilege in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and ineffective assistance of both trial counsel and postconviction counsel. The Supreme Court denied the writ and denied Petitioner's motion for appoint of counsel as moot, holding that Petitioner's claims were not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the petition.Appellant pled guilty to one count each of aggravated residential burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft of property. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of fifty-four years' imprisonment. Appellant filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that his sentence exceeded the penalty for a Class D felony. In response, the circuit court entered an amended sentencing order nunc pro tunc. Appellant then filed a second petition challenging his sentence. The circuit court denied the petition on the basis that an amended order had been entered in the case. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to correct the sentencing order, holding that the circuit court's nunc pro tunc failed to correct certain sentencing errors. View "Willingham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner failed to state a ground on which the writ could issue.Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. On remand, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In the instant petition, Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he could raise the claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that this Court declines to broaden the grounds for the writ to include claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Daniels v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant failed to allege facts to support his claim of an illegal sentence.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant later filed a second pro se petition to correct illegal sentence, arguing that he did not qualify for a life sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501(d). The circuit court denied the petition, determining that Appellant's life sentence was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentence was clearly within the prescribed statutory range and was legal on its face. View "Coakley 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 present a cognizable claim for coram nobis relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated residential burglary, attempted kidnapping, first-degree battery, and aggravated assault. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner set forth five claims for relief, asserting that the claims constituted violations of his fundamental due process rights. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the allegations raised by Petitioner did not set out facts that were extrinsic to the record and otherwise did not fall within the four categories recognized as grounds for issuance of the writ. View "Her 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 establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree battery, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and aggravated residential burglary. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. Petitioner later brought this petition for leave to proceed on a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to state sufficient allegations to satisfy issuance of the writ. View "Pitts v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Defendant's request for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief.Defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of four people. Defendant later filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction int he circuit court so that he may pursue a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, he argued that the prosecution withheld material evidence that would have prevented his convictions by bolstering his assertion of self-defense. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Defendant's proposed attack on the judgment was without merit. View "Kemp v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of rape, holding that none of Defendant's arguments on appeal entitled him to a reversal of his conviction.On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but did challenge other aspects of the trial court's rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it accepted the State's race-neutral justification for striking an African American juror; and (2) did not err when it barred an inquiry into the victim's prior allegations of sexual assault and psychiatric records from a private behavioral hospital. View "Turbo 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 raise a cognizable claim for issuance of the writ.Petitioner was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment as a habitual offender. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. At issue was Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of coram nobis, in which Petitioner challenged the testimony corroborating his part in the crime. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a claim that is found in one of the four categories that fall within the purview of coram nobis relief. View "Green v. State" on Justia Law