Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to demonstrate that his sentence was illegal on its face.Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder was illegal because the order did not abide by the requirements set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-804. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances, section 16-90-804 does not apply; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to habeas relief on the claims presented. View "Owens v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se third 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.Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The court of appeals affirmed. In his third coram nobis petition Petitioner argued that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose favorable treatment granted to a key witness in exchange for her trial testimony and by failing to disclose the transcript of a 911 call made by the witness, and that exculpatory findings from his codefendant's trial would have changed the outcome in Petitioner's trial. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue and that some of his claims were successive. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, holding that Appellant's trial attorneys were ineffective.Appellant was convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse. In his petition for postconviction relief, Appellant argued, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective because they abandoned their objection to instructing the jury that the death of the victim's unborn child could be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The circuit court rejected Appellant's claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in presenting to the jury the death of the victim's unborn child as an aggravating factor, and Appellant's trial attorneys were ineffective when they abandoned their objection to this instruction; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the fact-finder's decision would have been different absent counsels' errors. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) miscalculated his parole eligibility, holding that the circuit court failed to address Appellant's primary claim that the ADC erred in applying a 2007 amended version of Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-120(e) requiring defendants sentenced to a firearm enhancement to serve seventy percent of the enhanced sentence.Defendant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment for aggravated robbery and an additional fifteen years' imprisonment for use of a firearm in the robbery pursuant to section 16-90-120. In dismissing Appellant's mandamus petition, the circuit court agreed with the State's argument that Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-911(a)(1)(c) authorized the ADC to require Appellant to serve seventy percent of his aggregate sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required for the circuit court to address whether the seventy-percent requirement was applicable to the fifteen-year sentence enhancement and to address the language found in the amendment to section 16-90-120. View "Rogers v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying and dismissing the petition on the basis that issues surrounding parole eligibility are not cognizable in habeas proceedings.Appellant appeared before the parole board on September 5, 2019 and was denied parole for two years. The parole board affirmed the two-year denial. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant argued that the parole board's actions were illegal and in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-615. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing probable cause that he was detained without lawful authority. View "Cervantes v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the grounds raised in Appellant's petition were not grounds for habeas relief.Appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder, first-degree terroristic threatening, and second-degree battery. Appellant later petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that none of the allegations were cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying habeas relief on Appellant's claims. View "Millsap v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it treated the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 petition and denied it because the grounds raised in the petition were distinctly covered by that Rule.Appellant pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 300 months' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition, Appellant argued that his counsel conspired with the prosecutor to mislead him with respect to the sentences he received for his guilty pleas and that his trial counsel acted in bad faith. The circuit court treated the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 and denied it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's ruling that Defendant's allegations should have been raised in a timely petition under Rule 37.1 was a correct statement of law. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

Here, the Supreme Court announced new protocols to maintain the safety of jurors, litigants, attorneys, court personnel and the public in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Court suspended until January 15, 2021 jury trials that have not begun. The Court, however, urged that judges continue to move cases forward, either through the use of technology by virtual or telephonic hearings or through in-person hearings that meet the Arkansas Department of Health's criteria for safe gatherings. The Court held that any delay for speedy-trial purposes due to precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic shall presumptively constitute good cause under Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3(h) and shall constitute an excluded period for speedy-trial purposes. View "In Response To The COVID-19 Pandemic" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Petitioner's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the chief justice had the constitutional authority to appoint a special judge, who had the jurisdiction and authority to preside over Petitioner's case.Two days before Petitioner's scheduled trial, Chief Justice Hannah appointed Honorable Ted Capeheart to preside in the place of an elected circuit court judge who had suddenly fallen ill. Twice, Petitioner filed habeas petitions alleging that Judge Capeheart lacked authority to preside over his case. The circuit court denied both petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Chief Justice had the constitutional authority to appoint Judge Capeheart, who consequently had the jurisdiction and authority to preside over Petitioner's case. View "Russell v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's claim for habeas relief but remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that Petitioner's sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for his offenses.In his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus Petitioner alleged that his convictions for arson and first-degree battery are void because he did not plead guilty to either offense and that his sentence for first-degree murder exceeded the length provided in the sentencing guidelines. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding (1) Petitioner's claims failed to demonstrate that he was illegally detained; but (2) the suspended imposition of sentences in connection with Petitioner's convictions for first-degree murder and battery exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses, and therefore, resentencing was necessary. View "Waller v. State" on Justia Law