Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) failing to stop trial and conduct a competency hearing on its own volition; (2) failing to grant a mistrial after Appellant had an outburst in front of the jury, as the fundamental fairness of the trial was not affected; and (3) requiring Appellant to wear a stun belt, shackles and handcuffs for the remainder of the trial after his outburst in the courtroom, as Appellant’s own conduct brought about the need for restraints, and he was not denied his right to a fair trial. View "Britton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, forgery, and fraudulent use of a credit card. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s request for a copy of the record at public expense. View "Anthony v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree battery. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview and call certain witnesses. The circuit court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying relief, where Appellant did not provide any support for his conclusory claims that counsel was ineffective and made no showing that counsel committed any specific error that prejudiced the defense. View "Stiggers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape of his step-granddaughter and sentenced to a term of 480 months. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in rejecting without a hearing Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to defective charging language and jury instruction; and (2) failing to investigate and utilize evidence of a third party’s semen found on the victim’s pants. View "McDaniels v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts each of aggravated robbery and theft of property. The charges arose from the aggravated robbery of two different banks, two days apart, and the charges were joined for trial. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 672 months imprisonment. After the judgment was affirmed, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising claims of trial error and insufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court denied relief because Appellant failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action and thus failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Chambliss v. State" on Justia Law

In 1986, Appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and battery in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Appellant filed in the circuit court in the county where he was in custody a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis and for writ of habeas corpus, contending, among other claims, that he was actually innocent of the offenses. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motion for appointment of counsel, holding (1) the circuit court where Appellant was incarcerated did not have authority to consider Appellant’s writ of error coram nobis; and (2) Appellant did not state a ground on which the writ of habeas corpus could issue. View "Henderson v. State" on Justia Law

Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority filed a complaint for condemnation and declaration of taking, seeking to take property owned by Appellants. That same day, Ozark deposited $66,986, the fair-market-appraisal amount of the property, with the clerk of court. Appellants challenged the amount deposited, claiming it was not sufficient compensation. After a trial, the jury awarded Appellants $341,500 in compensation for the property. Thereafter, Appellants filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 18-15-605(b). The circuit court denied the motion, finding that section 18-15-605(b) was not applicable to Appellants’ case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that section 18-15-605(b) was not applicable to Appellants’ case and in thereby denying Appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees. View "Giles v. Ozark Mountain Reg'l Pub. Water Auth." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of delivery of crack cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The circuit court denied the petition after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Appellant’s counsel (1) did not render ineffective assistance by failing to produce testimony that was promised on opening statement; but (2) provided ineffective assistance by neglecting to make proper motions for directed verdict. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. View "Conley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, not advising him that he would not be eligible for parole until he had served seventy percent of his sentence. The trial court denied Appellant’s petition after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted the motion Appellant filed asking for counsel to be appointed to represent him, holding that the trial court did not err in denying relief on Appellant’s claims. View "Barber v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of rape of his biological daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that he was entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and related trial errors. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record did not support the allegations, the allegations were without merit or conclusory, and Appellant was otherwise not entitled to relief on his claims. View "Breeden v. State" on Justia Law