Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property in the armed robbery of two bank employees as they were filling an ATM machine. The Supreme Court affirmed. Seventy-four days after the mandate issued, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition on the merits. Appellant appealed. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding that because Appellant's petition was filed fourteen days after the sixty-day period to file a timely petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the Rule 37.1 petition. View "Burks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 720 months' imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Two years after the petition was denied, Petitioner again filed a coram-nobis petition, raising the same allegation in the second petition as in the first. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner's successive application for coram-nobis relief was an abuse of the writ because he alleged no facts sufficient to distinguish his claim in the instant petition from the claim in the first. View "Kelly v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of failing to comply with registration and reporting requirements applicable to sex offenders and with residing within 2000 feet of a daycare facility for children. Appellant's subsequent petition for review was denied. After the judgment had been affirmed and while the petition for review was pending, Appellant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Appellant appealed, seeking by motion to void the appeal on the grounds that the postconviction relief petition was filed prematurely. The Supreme Court treated the motion to void the appeal as a motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice to proceed with a timely postconviction relief petition. The Court (1) granted Appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal; but (2) ruled that Appellant was not entitled to file a second postconviction petition, as Appellant's first petition could be considered as timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(a). View "Green v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court affirmed, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court failed to make specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under Rule 37.5. Remanded for the entry of a written order containing factual findings and legal conclusions as to those issues raised on appeal in compliance with Rule 37.5 and the Court's holding in Echols v. State. View "Decay v. State" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses and was sentenced to 564 months' imprisonment. In 2012, Appellant filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence, contending that, inter alia, he was denied his due-process and equal-protection rights, and he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. After holding that the petition amounted to an untimely petition for postconviction relief, the trial court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and sought leave to file a belated brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding (1) most of Appellant's claims were cognizable in a Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition; (2) to the extent that any of Appellant's claims were not cognizable under Rule 37.1, the claims did not allege the type of error required to support a claim of an illegal sentence; and (3) Appellant's petition was untimely filed under either Rule 37.1 or Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property in the armed robbery of two bank employees as they were filling an ATM machine. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to have jurisdiction reinvested in the trial court to consider a a petition for writ of error coram nobis. As grounds for the writ, Petitioner alleged that the prosecution wrongfully withheld information from the defense that could have been used to impeach the victims' testimony that Petitioner was the perpetrator. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as (1) Petitioner failed to establish a Brady v. Maryland violation; and (2) Petitioner did not act with diligence in bringing his claims. View "Burks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that his sentence of life without parole violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Ark. Const. art. II, 9 because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence. Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Court's original judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders in homicide cases. On remand, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Defendant's capital-murder sentence should be reversed and remanded for resentencing under the discretionary range for a Class Y felony, and a sentencing hearing should be held in which Defendant may present any mitigating evidence as provided in Miller; and (2) Defendant's sentences for aggravated robbery, as well as his sentence enhancement for the use of a firearm, were still valid. View "Whiteside v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his attorney, without consulting him, changed the trial strategy from arguing justification to arguing reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and at the same time, denied him his constitutional right to testify. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant was wrongfully denied his right to testify and to pursue a justification defense, but the errors were harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it found Defendant failed to show there was a reasonable probability that the fact-finder's decision would have been different absent counsel's errors. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief. On the same day, Appellant filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition. In the petitions, Appellant presented three grounds for relief and additionally alleged he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The trial court treated the two pleadings as separate petitions and denied them without a hearing. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the allegations in Appellant's petitions were without merit. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered a guilty plea to battery in the second degree and was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Petitioner failed to timely appeal but later sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order, contending that the circuit court failed to send him a copy of the order denying his petition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, as nothing in the record suggested that Petitioner was properly notified that the order had been entered, and the State had not filed a response to Petitioner's motion to refute the allegations contained in it. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law