Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.Appellant pled guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentencing order was illegal on its face because the prosecutor made a notation that Appellant was not eligible for parole pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 16-93-609 applied to Appellant's conviction and that Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentence were illegal. View "Flow v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition and in finding of an abuse of the writ.Appellant filed multiple postconviction actions challenging his sentence. Less than thirty days after the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant filed the instant pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court dismissed the petition and found an abuse of the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied and dismissed Appellant's habeas petition. View "Anderson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Appellant's petition for ineffective assistance of counsel filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of aggravated residential burglary and sentenced to life in prison. In his Rule 37 postconviction petition, Appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective on ten grounds. The circuit court denied the petition after holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was provided constitutionally effective assistance of counsel, and therefore, his petition for postconviction relief failed. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Appellant of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and committing first-degree murder in the presence of a child, holding that substantial evidence supported the convictions.On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented substantial evidence of the requisite mental state for first-degree murder; (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction for attempted first-degree murder; and (3) after examining the record, no prejudicial error has been found. View "Collins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-101 to -123, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellant was convicted of four counts of rape and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. Appellant later filed the pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that was the subject of this appeal, making several claims. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate probable cause for the writ to issue. View "Jones v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that the circuit court correctly denied the petition as timely.Appellant was convicted of three counts of capital murder, one count of attempted rape, and one count of residential burglary. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to 140 years' imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence, which was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err by denying Appellant's petition as untimely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). View "Dirickson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of rape, second-degree sexual assault, and third-degree domestic battery, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by admitting as hearsay a journal entry, list, and letter written by the victim and abused its discretion by admitting evidence of his suicide attempt during his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error resulting the admission of the victim's writings was harmless; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of suicide threats made during Defendant's arrest. View "Adams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the denial of Appellant's pro se motion to enforce his plea agreement, holding that Appellant's motion to enforce the plea agreement represented an untimely postconviction motion, and therefore, Appellant's notice of appeal was untimely.Appellant pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to forty-five years' imprisonment. In his motion to enforce the plea agreement, Appellant argued that the sentence he received was not the sentence included in the plea agreement. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that both Appellant's motion to enforce the plea agreement and his notice of appeal were untimely, and therefore, neither the circuit court nor the Supreme Court had authority to grant the relief sought. View "Manuel v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to the circuit court's order granting a mistrial as to both the guilt and penalty phases of Defendant's capital murder trial when the event precipitating the mistrial occurred after the jury found Defendant guilty, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the unique circumstances in this case required a mistrial as to both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial.After a retrial, a jury convicted Defendant of capital murder and first-degree battery. During the penalty phase of trial, the State's witness lunged toward Defendant in an apparent effort to assault him. After the jury left the courtroom, Defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial of the sentencing proceeding. The circuit court declared a mistrial as to both the guilt and the penalty phases of the trial. The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking an order directing the circuit court to preserve the guilty verdict and conduct a new sentencing hearing only. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the circuit court did not err or exceed its jurisdiction in declaring a mistrial with respect to the guilt phase of the trial. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment but reversed the additional ten years added to the sentence for a firearm enhancement, holding that Defendant's ten-year sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-121 was illegal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction because the State met its burden of negating Defendant's justification defense; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to introduce evidence about Defendant's gang affiliation; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain hearsay statements attributed to the decedent as dying declarations; and (4) the trial court illegally added ten years to Gentry’s life sentence under section 16-90-121. View "Gentry v. State" on Justia Law