Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated residential burglary, and other offenses. Appellant was sentenced to fifty-two years’ imprisonment, which included a firearm enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The circuit court denied relief without holding a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not establish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue and actual-innocence defense where Appellant’s counsel actually pursued an actual-innocence defense at trial; (2) Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice due to trial counsel’s failure to move for a change of venue; (3) Appellant’s sentence for employing a firearm in the commission of an offense was not void as the result of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) considering the totality of the evidence, the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing. View "Van Winkle v. State" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of rape. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed an Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s petition contained three allegations of deficient performance during the second jury trial. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that the first allegation was conclusory and the remaining allegations were matters of trial strategy and could not form the basis for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that the first allegation could not form the basis for postconviction relief; but (2) Appellant’s second and third claims for relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel were colorable claims. Remanded for a hearing on Appellant’s second and third claims. View "Sandrelli v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder. The jury sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court granted Defendant a new sentencing hearing based on counsel’s admission that his performance had been inadequate. The court, however, denied Defendant relief on the basis that counsel should have presented a defense of mental disease or defect. The State appealed from the first finding, and Defendant appealed from the second finding. The Supreme Court (1) reversed on appeal, holding that the circuit court analyzed the case under a subjective legal standard rather than assessing counsel’s performance under an objective standard; and (2) affirmed on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief based on counsel’s failure to present an affirmative defense. View "State v. Lacy" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of a Schedule III substance with the purpose to deliver, possession of a Schedule III substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a canine sniff conducted after he was pulled over for failing to use a turn signal. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions and sentence, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress where the canine sniff was conducted after Appellant’s continued detention that was conducted without reasonable suspicion. View "MacKintrush v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that defense counsel was ineffective on seven separate grounds. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to assert that but for any alleged ineffectiveness on the part of counsel he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, sixth offense. Appellant appealed, arguing that his conviction violated the ex post facto clauses of the Arkansas Constitution and United States Constitution. This appeal presented an issue of first impression whether an appeal was allowed from Appellant’s conditional plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal; and (2) as to the merits, Appellant’s conviction does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. View "Laymon v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a construction company, filed this suit after the Arkansas State Claims Commission (ASCC) denied a claim by Plaintiff related to a contract Plaintiff had entered into with the Arkansas State Highway Commission (ASHC) to complete a highway improvement project. Plaintiff named as defendants the ASCC, the ASHC, and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD). In its complaint, Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the method by which the State resolves claims against it, asserting that the procedures violated the Due Process Clause. After a remand by the Supreme Court, the circuit court dismissed Plaintiff’s due process claim and equal protection claim as barred by sovereign immunity. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the circuit court erred in dismissing its due process claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an unconstitutional act on the part of Defendants that would except its due process claim from the doctrine of sovereign immunity. View "Duit Constr. Co. v. Ark. State Claims Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of four counts of computer exploitation of a child in the first degree in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-27-605(a) and of twenty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child in violation of Ark. Code Ann. 5-27-602(a). On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred by not reducing each charge to a single count in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 5-27-602 does not impose multiple prosecutions for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause, as the statute authorizes separate convictions for each prohibited photograph and videotape that is possessed; and (2) with respect to his convictions under section 5-27-605, Appellant did not provide any argument explaining how his multiple convictions under the statute result in a double-jeopardy violation. View "Rea v. State" on Justia Law

In 2014, the City of Siloam Springs filed a second amended complaint for condemnation of land and order of immediate possession of property owned by Appellees. The complaint alleged that the amount of $13,950 would be just compensation for the taking. Appellees denied that $13,950 was just compensation. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Appellees, concluding that they were entitled to just compensation in the amount of $22,253. Appellees subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees, alleging that their property had been taken by the State through the Arkansas State Highway Commission and that they were entitled to attorney’s fees under Ark. Code Ann. 27-67-317(b). The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Appellees and awarded attorney’s fees and expenses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City in this case proceeded under its authority as a municipality in exercising eminent domain over the property; and (2) there is no statutory authority for an award of attorney’s fees against a municipality in a condemnation proceeding. View "City of Siloam Springs v. La-De LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that, based on a totality of the evidence under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. View "Airsman v. State" on Justia Law