Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Arkansas Supreme Court
Charland v. State
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of rape and sentenced to seventy-five years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a timely postconviction petition, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not calling certain witnesses and for operating under a methamphetamine-induced psychosis when she was representing Appellant. The circuit court denied postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by trial counsel's performance; (2) the circuit court's written findings were adequate; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Carter v. Circuit Court (Chandler)
Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of first-degree battery. The court of appeals affirmed. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied by the circuit court following an evidentiary hearing. Because the court's order failed to provide a ruling as to each claim in the petition, Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for modification. Petitioner thereafter filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, asking the Supreme Court to compel the circuit court to respond to Petitioner's motion for modification. The Court granted the petition, holding that a petition for writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy in such circumstances.
White v. State
Appellant Chad White was convicted of rape and second-degree battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in (1) ordering him to complete a sex-offender treatment program while incarcerated and (2) allowing evidence of prior alleged misconduct involving a minor to be introduced during the sentencing phase of the trial. The Supreme Court (1) remanded with directions for the circuit court to strike the imposed condition and entered a corrected judgment and commitment order, as the condition of Appellant's incarceration requiring sex-offender treatment was illegal; and (2) affirmed on the second point, as Appellant's arguments on this point were not preserved for review.
Tornavacca v. State
Appellant Michael Tornavacca entered a negotiated plea of guilty to theft of property, a class B felony, and theft of property, a class C felony. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's argument that he was deprived of due process upon his discharge from the drug-court program did not need to be addressed because Appellant had been provided the relief he was seeking; (2) the circuit court did not err in ruling that Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when he was terminated from the program; and (3) the circuit court did not err in finding that Appellant had committed two "strikes" in drug court.
Morgan v. State
Appellant Jeffery Morgan was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that the evidence in the court proceedings showed that he had released the victim in a safe place and that he should therefore have been convicted of no more than a Class B felony. The petition, however, was not timely filed. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that Appellant's constitutional rights had not been violated. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motion related to that appeal moot, as Appellant's petition, filed almost seven years after the sentence was imposed and the mandate issued, was well outside of the requisite period.
Johnson v. State
Appellant Jermiko Johnson was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault in the second degree. Appellant subsequently filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming (1) he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney failed to subpoena certain witnesses, (2) there was prosecutorial misconduct at his trial, and (3) the prosecution's use of the testimony of the victim and her mother to convict him of the offense was a denial of due process and equal protection of law because the victim and her mother were mentally incompetent. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to raise any ground that entitled him to relief under the postconviction rule.
Davis v. State
Appellant Andrew Davis entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate criminal cases in the circuit court. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360 months' imprisonment in each case to be served concurrently. After the judgment was entered, Appellant filed a pro se motion to correct a clerical mistake in the judgment-and-commitment order, contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The motion was denied. Appellant subsequent filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, again contending that the ADC had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motions filed by Appellant in relation to his appeal moot, as Appellant's ground for relief was not a ground for granting a writ of error coram nobis.
Cowan v. State
Appellant Michael Cowan was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and sentenced as a habitual offender to 960 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel refused to allow him to testify. The circuit court denied postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant appealed, and before the Supreme Court were two motions filed by Appellant relating to the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, holding that Appellant's argument was not cognizable in a postconviction relief petition.
Chunestudy v. State
Appellant Joseph Chunestudy was found guilty by a jury of the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by allowing the introduction of prior and subsequent acts into evidence; (2) Appellant's arguments that the circuit court erred in denying Appellant's motion for directed verdict and by allowing the State to comment on Appellant's right to remain silent were not preserved for review; and (3) the circuit court did not err by allowing a supervisor with the state police to testify as an expert and lay witness during the guilt phase of trial.
Camp v. State
Petitioner Wyouman Camp was convicted of first-degree murder as an accomplice and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition requesting that the Supreme Court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by falsely representing that Petitioner's accomplice would receive a life sentence, which artificially enhanced the credibility of the accomplice's testimony. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden to set forth a meritorious proposed attack on the judgment as a basis for issuance of the writ.