Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to serve an aggregate sentence of 660 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the sentence imposed was illegal, rendering the judgment-and-commitment order invalid on its face. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition where (1) the sentence was not excessive, and the judgment-and-commitment order was not invalid on its face; and (2) the remaining issues raised by Appellant were not cognizable in a writ of habeas corpus. View "Smith v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 seeking DNA and fingerprint testing of a rubber mask found at the crime scene. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant filed an appeal and moved for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motion, holding that because Appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness or to satisfy the requirement that the proposed testing produced new material evidence that would both support the theory of defense presented at trial and raise a reasonable probability that the petitioner did not commit the offense, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in denying Appellant's petition for relief. View "Slocum v. State" on Justia Law

In 1983, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In 2004, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to act 1780 or 2001 in which he requested DNA testing of blood samples he claimed had been collected from the crime scene. The trial court denied the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2012, Petitioner filed another pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking the use of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System to compare prints lifted from the crime scene to the prints of three individuals he argued may have committed the crime for which he was convicted. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that Petitioner could have included the claim in the petition filed in 2004. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Petitioner filed a motion for belated appeal, which the Supreme Court denied, holding that the habeas petition and motion for reconsideration were wholly without merit, and therefore, Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Penn v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Petitioners were convicted of various drug-related offenses. Petitioners subsequently filed a pro se joint petition seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court denied them of their right to allocution before the entry of their judgments, that their counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that they were deprived of the right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as all of Petitioners' claims were not subject to review in a coram-nobis proceeding. View "Myers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. Eighty-three days after the mandate was issued, Appellant file a pro se request for postconviction relief, arguing that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely. Appellant appealed and filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the petition. Appellant also filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motion, holding that because the petition before the trial court was not timely filed, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. View "Laswell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. After unsuccessfully pursuing various postconviction remedies, Appellant filed petitions that the circuit court treated as petitions for writ of habeas corpus. In the petitions, Appellant raised allegations of prosecutorial and police misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, due-process and equal-protection violations, and various trial errors. The circuit court denied the petitions on the ground that Appellant failed to allege the facial invalidity of the judgment-and-commitment order or that the court acted outside of its jurisdiction. The curt further found that Appellant failed to present evidence that he was being illegally detained. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant stated no basis to support issuance of the writ. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of theft of property, and employing a firearm while committing the crimes. Seventy-three days after the court of appeals issued its mandate affirming the convictions, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance and that the enhancement of his sentence was in error. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that it was untimely filed. Petitioner sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion because Petitioner could not prevail if an appeal were permitted to go forward where the the petition before the trial court was not timely filed, and thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. Appellant subsequently field a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking scientific testing of a gun discovered inside the apartment shared by the victim and a witness to the murder and of shell casings found outside the apartment. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and mooted the motions related to the appeal, holding (1) because Appellant did not show the testing could satisfy Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-202, the circuit court did not err in denying relief; and (2) dismissal of the petition was proper because it was not timely filed. View "Gardner v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial attorneys had rendered effective assistance. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and mooted the motions related to Appellant's appeal, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (2) the trial court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on Appellant's postconviction relief petition. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

On July 11, 2012, Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and mandamus in the circuit court requesting that the court enter an order (1) declaring that the filing period for independent candidates for municipal offices for the City of Helena-West Helena starts July 27, 2012, and (2) mandating that city officials notify election officials of the proper filing date. The circuit court granted the complaint. Appellants filed a motion to intervene on August 6, 2012 and August 8, 2012. The circuit court denied the motions in orders entered October 12, 2012 and October 18, 2012, concluding that both motions were untimely. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Appellants' arguments on appeal because (1) the filing period at issue concerned the now-past November 6, 2012 election; and (2) both Appellants won their respective races in the election. View "Etherly v. Newsome" on Justia Law