Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant Bernard Marks was convicted of capital murder, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition and an amended petition for postconviction relief, contending that his trial counsel was ineffective for successfully opposing the prosecution's request for the jury to be instructed on lesser-included offenses. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing, ruling that counsel's decision to forgo lesser-included-offense instructions was a matter of trial strategy and, thus, was not a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by failing to conduct a hearing on Appellant's petition for postconviction relief as Appellant's allegation of ineffectiveness was without merit; and (2) because the record and petition conclusively showed that Appellant's claim was without merit, any deficiency in the circuit court's findings of fact would not cause the Court to remand for further findings to be made.

Following his conviction on two counts of manslaughter and one count of first-degree battery, Appellant Eric Hoyle filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in (1) determining that Appellant failed to support his claim that there was attorney error in dealing with the plea negotiations; (2) determining that counsel's decision not to object to certain hearsay was tactical and based on reasonable professional judgment; (3) finding Appellant's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to an amendment of the information; (4) finding that counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment in deciding not to object to evidence of prior bad acts; and (5) finding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a reduction in sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-107 when the motion would have been denied.

Appellant Robert Heffernan was convicted by a jury of capital murder for the abduction, rape, and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl. Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition for relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201, claiming that his co-defendant, Mike Breault, raped and murdered the victim and that Breault later confessed to the crime. Appellant requested that the evidence from the crime scene be DNA tested so as to conclusively identify Breault as the murder and rapist. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition, holding that testing the semen found on the victim and matching it to Breault would not prove Appellant's actual innocence because Appellant was charged and convicted as an accomplice to Breault, nor would it demonstrate that Appellant did not act as an accomplice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances, the circuit court was correct to find that the DNA testing Appellant requested could not exonerate him, and it was proper to deny his petition.

Following a jury trial, Appellant Jeffrey Hayes was found guilty of rape and kidnapping. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging several grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, jury misconduct, judicial bias, perjury by a witness, and prosecutorial misconduct. The circuit court denied his petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that Appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice in his assertion that his counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify, (2) failing to file a motion to suppress Appellant's statements to police, and (3) failing to dismiss a potential male juror in his trial whom Appellant claimed was the victim of a violent crime.

Appellant Michael Hatcher was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Following the affirmance of the judgments, Appellant filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the circuit court's decision to deny Appellant's petition was not clearly erroneous where (1) Appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to testimony given by a chemist at the crime lab and a narcotics officer, and (2) Appellant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument with regard to jury instructions.

Appellant George French entered a negotiated plea of guilty to seven counts, including kidnapping, intimidating a witness, possession of firearms by certain persons, aggravated assault on a family or household member, and terroristic threatening. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty based on an alleged breach of the plea agreement. The circuit court entered an order treating Appellant's petition to withdraw as a petition for postconviction relief under the rule stating that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is untimely if filed after entry of the judgment, but in such an instance, the trial court may consider the motion as one for postconviction relief. The court denied the petition on the basis that Appellant had previously sought postconviction relief and could not file a subsequent petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was procedurally barred from filing a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.

Appellant Timothy Edwards was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Edwards subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, that the circuit court failed to rule on the probable-cause issue during a pretrial suppression hearing, and that, as a result, he was being illegally detained. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that Edwards' claims were not the type allowed in a habeas proceeding as Edwards failed to allege or demonstrate a lack of jurisdiction or that the committment order was invalid on its face. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly denied Edwards' petition because he failed to raise a cognizable claim in his petition.

Appellant James Clemons was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se brief to support his petition for postconviction relief. The trial court declined to consider the brief as it exceeded the ten-page limit for petitions, and also denied the petition. Appellant appealed and sought by motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for postconviction relief because the petition was not timely filed with the circuit clerk.

Appellant Harold Cassell was found guilty of capital murder. Appellant subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the county in which he was incarcerated. The circuit court denied the petition. On appeal, Appellant contended (1) he was convicted of capital murder as an accomplice pursuant to statutes that were not in effect at the time the offense was committed and that the application of those statutes violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws, (2) he should have been indicted as an accessory under the statutes that were in effect when the murder occurred, and (3) he was tried on charges that were not contained in the information. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a writ of habeas corpus was not the appropriate form of relief for Appellant's claims.

Appellant Jimmy Bumgardner was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of pseudoephedrine. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of Lincoln County. After Appellant filed his petition, he was transferred to Jefferson County. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that Appellant's arguments had been addressed in his petition for postconviction relief and that he failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that because Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus was not filed pursuant to the procedural requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-105, he could not seek relief until he filed the petition in the county in which he was currently held in custody.