Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several felonies and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds, as there was no speedy-trial violation in this case; and (2) the two fifteen-year sentences imposed on Defendant for having used a firearm to commit aggravated robbery and theft of property were not illegal, as Defendant failed to demonstrate that the Court's holding in Williams v. State, in which the Court addressed the issue, was patently wrong or manifestly unjust. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) the circuit court should have granted his motion for acquittal because at the time of the charged conduct, he lacked capacity as a result of mental disease or defect to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the criminality of his conduct; and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the jury announced that it was deadlocked. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for acquittal; and (2) Appellant's second argument was not preserved for appellate review. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to multiple felony offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 420 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed in the Mississippi County trial court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and a pro se motion to rescind the plea agreement he entered when he pled guilty. Appellant was incarcerated in Lee County when he filed the habeas corpus petition. The trial court denied both pleadings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was not incarcerated within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Mississippi County when he filed the petition, the court did not have personal jurisdiction to issue and make returnable a writ. View "Rivers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was insane or mentally incompetent at the time he entered his plea and that the trial court was deprived of jurisdiction to try an insane or mentally incompetent person. The circuit court declined to issue the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's petition did not establish the facial invalidity of the judgment or demonstrate a lack of the trial court's jurisdiction, Appellant failed to establish a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Matthews v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in a shooting death and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Appellant appealed, contending, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have a gun tested that was discovered in another person's possession months after the murder. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court clearly erred in finding that counsel's decision not to test the gun was reasonable, and the additional evidence may have changed the outcome of the trial. Remanded. View "Houston v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was conviction of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to 720 months' imprisonment. No appeal was taken from the judgment. Appellant subsequently filed a writ of error coram nobis, raising a number of claims. The trial court denied the writ. Appellant appealed, raising as his sole point on appeal an allegation of error concerning a claim of withheld evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying coram nobis relief where Appellant's pleading failed to demonstrate that the evidence he contended was withheld was sufficient to support issuance of the writ. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and the manufacture, delivery, or possession of marijuana and was sentenced to 120 months' incarceration. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and due-process and equal-protection violations. The trial court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant could not prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to demonstrate that the argument he contended counsel should have made had merit; and (2) to the extent that Appellant's independent constitutional claims may have been cognizable in a postconviction proceeding, the claims failed because the basis of Appellant's claims was without merit. View "Dotson v. State" on Justia Law

The City of Conway and Conway Corporation (collectively, "Conway") filed a land condemnation action against Petitioners, property owners. The morning of trial, Petitioners requested a continuance. The circuit court granted the continuance on the condition that Petitioners would be responsible for Conway's attorney's fees and costs associated with preparing for the trial. The continuance order also prohibited Petitioners from filing any additional pleadings until the attorneys' fees and costs were paid. Petitioners subsequently filed this motion for writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, writ of certiorari to rescind the order. The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition but granted the writ of certiorari, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a manifest, clear and gross abuse of discretion in ordering Petitioners to pay Conway's attorney's fees and costs. View "Cooper v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree forgery and theft by receiving. Appellant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient corroboration to support the forgery conviction and insufficient evidence to sustain the theft-by-receiving judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus repeating the arguments he raised on appeal. Appellant also argued that the evidence adduced at his trial was insufficient to sustain the convictions, that the trial court erred by denying certain motions and admitting inadmissible evidence, and that the court of appeals erred in affirming the judgment. The circuit court denied the habeas petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas petition, and therefore, he failed to demonstrate a basis for the writ to issue. View "Benton v. State" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of forty years imprisonment. In 2000, Appellant was convicted of first-degree battery and sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty years' imprisonment, with the term to run concurrently with the previously imposed sentence. In 2010, Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the records supervisor at the prison facility where he was an inmate would not credit him with his earned meritorious good time for purposes of determining parole eligibility. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's brief was insufficient for review and that Appellant failed to show he was entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "Banks v. Hobbs" on Justia Law