Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. Thereafter, Defendant filed a successive petition to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the State was allowed to amend the information to charge him with first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's petition, as the sentenced imposed was within the sentencing range for the offense of first-degree murder. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to several drug offenses in 2006. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to thirty-six months' imprisonment along with eighty-four months' suspended imposition in sentence. In 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence. Appellant pleaded no contest. The circuit court then revoked Appellant's suspended sentence and sentenced him to 168 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the circuit court's revocation order was beyond the statutory maximum to which he was originally exposed. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's sentence of 168 months' imprisonment upon revocation was within the statutory limits to which he was originally exposed. View "Walton v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with second-degree sexual assault of K.J., a person less than fourteen years old, who was Defendant's cousin. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion under Ark. Code Ann. 16-42-101(c), Arkansas's rape-shield statute, seeking to introduce at trial evidence of specific instances of sexual conduct of K.J. Specifically, Defendant sought to introduce a specific instance of sexual conduct that occurred between K.J. and her cousin, D.R., when K.J. was nine or ten years old. The circuit court granted the motion. The State brought this interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by ruling that the evidence was admissible, as the probative value of the testimony relating to K.J.'s statement to her mother about the alleged instance of sexual conduct was slight and was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial and inflammatory nature of the testimony. View "State v. Kindall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to suppress physical evidence seized from the living room and patio in her residence and in failing to grant her motion for a mistrial after her trial counsel's father died on the second day of trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error resulting from the admission of evidence from the living room and patio was harmless; and (2) under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's counsel's motion for a mistrial due to the death of trial counsel's father. View "Livingston v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to terroristic threatening in the first degree and was placed on five years' supervised probation. Because Appellant violated the conditions of his probation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Counsel for Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that Appellant was mentally incompetent when he pleaded guilty and, therefore, the finding of guilt should be set aside. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion related to the appeal moot, holding that because Petitioner had served his sentence by the time he filed this petition, his claim was moot, and a new revocation proceeding would not be an appropriate remedy. View "Hayden v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to police officers after he invoked his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies in the briefs filed by both the State and Defendant, finding (1) the State's brief failed to comply with the requirement of Ark. R. Crim. P. 4-3(i) because the State did not brief "all points argued by the appellant"; and (2) Defendant's brief was deficient because it failed to include necessary materials in the addendum. View "Fritts v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed two pro se petitions seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, contending (1) he was denied a fair trial because the victim's stepfather was related to the jury foreman, (2) two of the State's witnesses recanted their testimony after trial, (3) his appellate attorney filed a "no merit" brief pursuant to Anders v. California, (4) the prosecution withheld evidence favorable to the accused, and (5) the county circuit court in which he was tried did not have jurisdiction over his rape charge. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding (1) Defendant's first claim was not cognizable as a ground for a writ of error coram nobis; (2) recanted testimony in itself is not a ground for issuance of the writ; (3) Petitioner failed to show the filing of an Anders brief presented an issue that fits within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding; (4) Petitioner failed to establish a Brady violation occurred; and (5) the circuit court had jurisdiction to try Petitioner. View "Cromeans v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated residential burglary, two counts of aggravated robbery, and battery in the first degree. An order was later entered relieving Petitioner's retained attorney of any further responsibility as counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to proceed with a belated appeal from the judgment, stating that, once counsel was relieved, Petitioner was left without an attorney to represent him on direct appeal and that no steps were taken to ensure that his right to appeal was protected. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing that there was good cause for his failure to timely appeal. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming that his ability to represent himself at trial acting pro se was compromised by the prosecution and his stand-by counsel and that his attorney on direct appeal was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition. No appeal was taken, and Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding (1) Petitioner's allegations regarding his first claim did not merit postconviction relief; and (2) Petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's assistance on direct appeal. View "Walton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed a complaint against certain ADC authorities in their official capacities, seeking injunctive relief and damages against Appellees for their refusal to restore Appellant's Class I-B inmate status, which Appellant enjoyed while incarcerated in the county jail. Appellant also challenged Appellees' refusal to secure and provide to Appellant the privileges of Class I-B inmate status and their refusal to allow Appellant's participation in the prison's hobby-craft program. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's complaint was barred by sovereign immunity and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law