Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the second degree and to two counts of rape. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea in the cases pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 26.1. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was not a timely petition under the rule. Appellant appealed and filed a motion to file a belated brief. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared Appellant's motion moot, holding that because Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was untimely filed, the trial court and appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion and appeal. View "Coleman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The attorney appointed to represent Appellant on appeal of the conviction filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a no-merit brief. Appellant submitted a pro se response, setting forth issues he believed warranted a reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for directed verdict; (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's objection to the admission of certain photographs of the victim; and (3) Appellant's remaining allegations of error were not preserved for review. View "Breeden v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and four counts of committing a terroristic act. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, contending that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to interview, subpoena, or call three alibi witnesses, whom Appellant claimed were crucial to his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that trial counsel's decision not to proffer the witnesses' testimony demonstrated a well-reasoned choice regarding trial strategy, and therefore, counsel's performance was not deficient. View "Banks v. State" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending, inter alia, that his sentence of life imprisonment was illegal under Graham v. Florida because his habitual-offender status was based on prior felonies committed when he was a juvenile. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared moot Appellant's motion to file a belated reply brief on appeal, holding that Appellant did not establish that a writ of habeas corpus was warranted in his case. View "Mosley v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements and to violating conditions of his probated sentence. The circuit court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the plea agreement. After the sentencing hearing, through newly substituted counsel, Defendant filed a for a petition for postconviction relief requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, Defendant asserted that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was not voluntary and because he had discovered a new defense to the charges. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding (1) the Court could not entertain the issues raised in Defendant's first three points on appeal because they did not fall within any of the exceptions to the general prohibition of appealing a guilty plea; and (2) because Defendant's petition was not verified as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(c), the appeal must be dismissed. View "Keck v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing, as Defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by this deficient performance to the extent he was deprived of a fair trial. View "Holloway v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate serving time for criminal offenses, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending (1) he was subjected to an unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification by his victims, (2) his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, (3) the prosecutor at trial questioned his invocation of his right to remain silent after arrest, and (4) he was placed in double jeopardy when he was subjected without consent to retrial after a mistrial was declared at his first trial. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared moot the motion Appellant filed in relation to the appeal, holding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. Before a new sentencing order was entered, Appellant filed four pro se pleadings in the trial court. Three of the pleadings challenged the original sentence, and the fourth was a petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared moot Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal, holding (1) when Appellant was resentenced, the first three pleadings became moot; and (2) the trial court incorrectly concluded that the postconviction relief petition was untimely on the ground that it was filed while the appeal was pending, but Appellant did not make the showing required to grant the petition. View "Glaze v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of violating a protective order (judgment-and-commitment order) and was sentenced to fifty-four months' imprisonment. His probation for a prior offense was revoked on the grounds that he had violated the order of protection (revocation order). Separately appeals were taken from the revocation order and the judgment-and-commitment order. The court of appeals affirmed the revocation order and dismissed the appeal in the judgment-and-commitment order on the ground that the only notice of appeal that was filed pertained to the revocation order only. Petitioner filed a motion to proceed with a belated appeal in the case. The Supreme Court granted the motion, as the record reflected that a timely notice of appeal was indeed filed as to the judgment-and-commitment order. As there was a valid notice of appeal, the Court treated the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. View "Standridge v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of sexual indecency with a minor for the rape of his two granddaughters and sexual indecencies on a third granddaughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to sever charges into separate trials, as the acts alleged were not part of a single scheme or plan. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion without reaching Defendant's argument because Defendant failed to renew his motion to sever after his pretrial motion for severance was overruled, and therefore, Defendant waived his right to severance. View "Pruitt v. State" on Justia Law