Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant Roger Bradford filed three pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus, (1) challenging his 1982 convictions for three counts of deliver of a controlled substance, his 1990 conviction for second-degree escape, and his 1994 conviction for second-degree escape, and (2) claiming that those convictions were used to enhance a subsequent sentence. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's challenge to his convictions was moot as the sentences he received for those convictions had expired and any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy.

Appellant Shawna Biddle pled guilty to ten counts of rape and was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for reduction of sentence, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. The circuit court properly treated the motion as one seeking postconviction relief and then denied the petition, dismissing it with prejudice. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's plea was freely, voluntarily, and knowingly entered; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective.

Appellant Terrance Walton was convicted of breaking and entered and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his petition because counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the circumstantial evidence inasmuch as, had he done so, Appellant would have been found not guilty, constituted a direct attack on the judgment and, therefore, was not cognizable under a postconviction relief proceeding; and (2) the circuit court correctly concluded that Appellant was not unfairly prejudiced by his attorney's failure to state specific grounds in support of his motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Petitioner William Tubbs pled guilty to charges of theft by receiving and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident and fleeing. Petitioner filed a pro se motion for belated appeal of three orders entered in the circuit court and, additionally, filed two motions to amend the motion. The Supreme Court remanded for findings on attorney error after the first motion to amend. The circuit court found there was no attorney error. In his latest amended motion, Petitioner claimed that he did not receive notice of the entry of orders setting the amount of restitution. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding that because there was no attorney error or other good cause for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal established in Petitioner's motions, the Court did not need to consider further his request to proceed with an appeal of the orders.

Appellant Frederick Smith pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count each of felon in possession of a firearm, committing a terroristic act, and aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 600 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for habeas relief, arguing that his sentences were void and illegal under several theories. The circuit court summarily denied his petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant failed to state probable cause for issuance of the writ, no hearing was warranted; (2) Appellant's argument that the circuit court lacked authority to enter an amended judgment after he had filed his notice of appeal was without merit; and (3) Appellant's assertion that his sentence on the offense of felon in possession of a firearm was illegal was meritless because it did not raise a question of jurisdiction for purposes of habeas corpus relief.

Appellant Barry Simpson entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because the court violated procedural rules when the plea was taken. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted because he raised no argument that called into question the court's jurisdiction to accept his plea of guilty and enter a judgment, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought.

Appellant Eugene Pitts was convicted of capital murder and kidnapping. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging his actual innocence and requesting relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201. The circuit court found Appellant was entitled to the DNA testing of a hair recovered from the victim's clothing and ordered the state crime laboratory to conduct the testing. After the test results came back inconclusive, the hair fragment was lost. Appellant then filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to section 16-112-201, alleging actual innocence and citing his inability to have further testing on the missing hair fragment. The circuit court found all available relief to Appellant under the statute had been granted and that Appellant was entitled to no further relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's constitutional arguments were not preserved for appeal, and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in denying additional DNA testing.

Appellant Eric Murry pled guilty to charges of theft by receiving, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, for which he received a ten-year suspended sentence on each count and was ordered to pay $500 in court costs. After Appellant failed to pay court costs, failed to notify the sheriff of his address and employment, and was charged with further crimes, the circuit court revoked Appellant's suspended imposition of sentence and sentenced him to 360 months' incarceration. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied after finding the petition was over-length. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing a petition that failed to adhere to the page limit dictated in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.

Appellant Keith Miller entered a plea of guilty to theft by receiving and robbery. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, seeking to withdraw the plea of guilty. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the petition was untimely filed. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court granted Appellee State's motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that the petition was not timely filed, and as such, the trial court, and also the appellate court, were without jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant Charles Marshall was found guilty of first-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed in the circuit court of the county where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him and that the manner in which the judgment in his case was obtained was a violation of due process of law. The circuit court denied his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court was without jurisdiction in this case, and (2) Appellant's claims of constitutional violations were factual issues that should have been addressed during trial or through a direct appeal.