Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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 did not meet his burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record that was concealed from the defense and that was both material and prejudicial such as to have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial.In his petition, Petitioner argued that the State withheld material evidence from the defense by failing to comply with pretrial discovery. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's conclusory allegations failed to demonstrate that the State concealed evidence or that Petitioner suffered prejudice sufficient to establish that a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), occurred. View "Breeden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion in declining to issue the writ.Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment, in addition to 120 months' imprisonment, suspended. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging a coerced guilty plea, fraud or mistake, and withheld evidence. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the coram nobis petition had no merit. View "Pugh v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and a firearm enhancement, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial.On appeal, Defendant argued that his constitutional rights were violated during his cross-examination of a witness when that witness testified regarding Defendant's right to remain silent.The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the objection to the testimony because the comment was not the type of comment prohibited by the United States Supreme Court in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618 (1976). View "Sirkaneo v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's habeas corpus petition and denying his motion for reconsideration, holding that the petition was untimely and failed to rebut the presumption of untimeliness.Appellant's habeas corpus petition alleged his actual innocence and sought new DNA testing under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 to -123 and Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas. The circuit court dismissed the petition based on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider Appellant's petition for new scientific testing under Act 1780; but (2) the petition was untimely, and therefore, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in dismissing Appellant's petition. View "Gipson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, holding that Petitioner's allegations were unavailing.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft. The Supreme Court reversed the aggravated robbery convictions and remanded for resentencing. After resentencing, Petitioner petitioned for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 37, alleging that he received constitutionally deficient counsel both at trial and on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in rejecting Petitioner's alleged errors with respect to trial counsel's performance and that Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were without merit. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner did not timely file his petition and otherwise failed to state sufficient facts establishing his entitlement to the writ.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. In his coram nobis petition, Petitioner alleged that a third party confessed to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the State's response to his petition. The Supreme Court denied both the petition and the motion, holding that the petition was untimely, and the rules do not permit a reply to a response to a coram nobis petition. View "Thornton 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's claims did not establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court of appeals affirmed. In the instant action, Petitioner argued that the trial judge was biased and that newly discovered evidence indicated that he was actually innocent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's allegations were not within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se fourth 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 to issue.In his petition, Petitioner contended, inter alia, that there was newly discovered evidence entitling him to an evidentiary hearing and that the prosecutor coerced a witness to falsely testify. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner raised some of the allegations previously and failed to establish a claim for coram nobis relief. The ruling rendered moot Petitioner's motion to supplement the pro se fourth petition to revinest jurisdiction. View "Swanigan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition requesting the Court's permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to challenge his convictions, holding that the petition was correctly denied because Petitioner did not provide a meritorious basis for issuance of the petition.Petitioner was convicted of three counts of rape. In his coram nobis petition he alleged, among other things, that the prosecution withheld evidence of specific dates on which the victim stated the rapes occurred. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a potential error that would have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial. View "Hunt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court convicting Appellant of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and other crimes and sentencing him to three counts of life imprisonment and one term of fifty years to run consecutively, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for mistrial.On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for mistrial because certain testimony was so prejudicial that no admonition to the jury could have cured it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the testimony did not warrant a mistrial. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law