Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and four counts of committing a terroristic act. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant appealed, contending that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to interview, subpoena, or call three alibi witnesses, whom Appellant claimed were crucial to his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that trial counsel's decision not to proffer the witnesses' testimony demonstrated a well-reasoned choice regarding trial strategy, and therefore, counsel's performance was not deficient. View "Banks v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed and sought by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. View "Wedgeworth v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with capital murder and permitting the abuse of a minor by felony information on March 20, 2012. Petitioner pled not guilty to the charges, and the court set the case for jury trial on October 22, 2012. Citing trouble obtaining military records for mitigation purposes, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance. The court denied the motion without prejudice. On September 27, 2012, Petitioner filed a renewal of his motion for continuance, citing various objections. After a hearing, the court found that Defendant had failed to make the requisite factual showing and denied the motion. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, maintaining that because of the special circumstances of this case - a complex death penalty case slated for trial merely six months after Petitioner was afforded the benefit of counsel - the Court should grant relief. The Supreme Court denied the writ because Petitioner had another adequate remedy at law - an appeal. View "Pedraza v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court, alleging that the circuit court judge failed to act in a timely manner on a petition for postconviction relief Petitioner filed in 2009. While the judge was unable to determine the exact cause of the delay, the Supreme Court concluded that the delay was an anomaly resulting from clerical error rather than the consequence of a failure to have appropriate procedures in place. The Court then declared the petition for mandamus moot because the underlying petition was acted on by the circuit court. View "Paige v. Circuit Court (Reynolds)" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced in the underlying criminal case. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion seeking leave to file a pro se petition for rehearing, challenging the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, and arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court denied the motion, as Petitioner was represented by counsel on appeal who did not elect to file a petition for rehearing, and Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly raised in a belated petition for rehearing. View "Fields v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of several counts of breaking or entering and theft of property and sentenced to 480 months' incarceration. After the judgment was affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, raising a number of claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and due-process violations. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Appellant had failed to present proof to support each of his claims. Appellant appealed and then filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file his brief and five other motions, all of which indicated an intention to supplement the record. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part, denied in part, and declared moot in part Appellant's motions to supplement; (2) declared moot Appellant's motion for extension of time; and (3) dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's findings in its order denying postconviction relief were not clearly erroneous, and Appellant could not prevail on appeal. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted a proposal to the City of Pine Bluff Planning Commission requesting a Use Permitted on Review permit to utilize certain premises in Pine Bluff as a foster-care facility for displaced children. The Planning Commission and City Council denied Appellant's request. On appeal, the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that, although Pine Bluff City Ordinance 29-37 conferred standing on Appellant to bring the action, the ordinance was in conflict with Ark. R. Civ. P. 17, which requires that an action be brought by the real party in interest, and Rule 17 overrode the ordinance. Consequently, the circuit court ruled that, because Appellant was not the real party in interest, she lacked standing to bring suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the record did not contain the ordinance, the record was inadequate for review. View "Coleman v. City of Pine Bluff" on Justia Law

Appellant filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Appellant indicated in the heading to the petition that the petition encompassed six cases, and Appellant further indicated that he had entered pleas of guilty to felony offenses in the six cases. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the record on appeal was clearly deficient because it contained only one judgment, and therefore, the record was not sufficient to determine if the issues for reversal were well founded or if the petition was timely filed as to every judgment. View "Townsend v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of Michael Fox, who suffered three stab wounds. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's directed-verdict motion, as substantial evidence supported the verdict; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to a police officer; (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (4) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions to exclude prior bad acts involving Defendant's use of a knife; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude a plaster cast of the knife impression found in a seized knife box. View "Stevenson v. State" on Justia Law

The State appealed from a circuit court order dismissing its in rem forfeiture petition against real property located in Little Rock. The circuit court dismissed the petition based upon a finding that Ark. Code Ann. 5-42-204(c)(3) does not permit the State to pursue in rem forfeiture. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot because a settlement had been reached, and neither of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. Because the Court does not issue advisory opinions, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "State v. First Serv. Bank of Greenbrier" on Justia Law