Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to theft by receiving, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Appellant subsequently filed in the circuit court where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because the felony information charging him with aggravated robbery was defective and that the State did not have jurisdiction over him. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions Appellant filed in relation to the appeal moot, holding (1) because Appellant failed to properly object to the sufficiency of his indictment prior to trial, he did not establish that the information was defective; and (2) the trial court had jurisdiction over the proceedings. View "Murry v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The State commenced criminal proceedings against Petitioner by filing an information charging him with second-degree sexual assault. Petitioner filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charge on the basis of a speedy-trial violation, and the circuit court denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to halt the proceedings on the basis that the time period in which to bring him to trial had expired. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that this was not an appropriate case for interlocutory review of the issue that Petitioner sought to raise, as the motion here was not denied on the merits of the issue presented but rather was denied because the trial court ruled that it would not consider the issues in the pro se motion. View "Kindall v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant was a prisoner serving a life sentence on a capital-murder conviction. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the county where he was incarcerated, claiming that the process of service of the felony information charging him with the crime was constitutionally infirm. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal of the circuit court's order and filed a motion seeking an extension of time in which to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant's allegations of constitutional violations involving the process of charging him were not the type of error cognizable in a proceeding for the writ. View "Jones v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed in the circuit court in the county where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other claims, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The circuit court dismissed the petition and denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed. The Supreme Court clerk declined to lodge the record-on-appeal for procedural reasons, and Petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to proceed with the appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Appellant failed to state cognizable claims and therefore did not meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. View "Hooper v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant was imprisoned for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Appellant subsequently filed in the circuit court of the country where he was imprisoned a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming (1) his sentence was illegal because it was improperly enhanced using an out-of-state conviction, and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the imposition of the enhancement. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment, as (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable in habeas proceedings; and (2) Appellant failed to provide some evidence in support of his illegal sentence claim. View "Darrough v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that, without their knowledge, the City had erected a sewer line across Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs contended that in doing so, the City damaged a water pipe owned by Plaintiffs and that the damaged culvert was the proximate cause of three washouts on their property. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for negligence and inverse condemnation. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. The City appealed, arguing that the circuit court mischaracterized Plaintiffs' claim as based on contract, rather than tort, and in so doing denied the City the immunity to which it was entitled. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding Plaintiffs' negligence claim sounded in contract rather than tort; and (2) the City was entitled to statutory immunity as to the tort cause of action. View "City of Malvern v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 420 months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied. Appellant appealed and filed motions seeking to obtain documents from the prosecutor and to request an extension of time in which to file his brief. The Supreme Court (1) denied the motion to obtain documents, as Appellant failed to demonstrate that the documents could be utilized in preparing his brief to the Court; and (2) granted the motion for extension of time, as Appellant had not received a ruling on his motion to obtain documents and the circumstances of Appellant's incarceration caused delay in the brief's preparation. View "Plessy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, criminal attempt to commit capital murder, and aggravated robbery. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied the requested relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) failing to hold a hearing on Defendant's petition; (2) concluding that there was no merit to Defendant's argument that he was subjected to double jeopardy by being convicted of both capital murder and aggravated robbery; and (3) concluding that none of Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel had merit. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on its findings that Appellant was not incarcerated within the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction, as Appellant sought habeas relief under Act 1780 of 2001. Therefore, Appellant's petition was appropriately filed within the jurisdiction of the court in which he had been convicted, without regard to the place of his incarceration. View "Clemons v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to two counts of theft of property valued at over $2,500 for the theft of lottery tickets and one count of felony fraud for the cashing of the lottery tickets. The circuit court ordered that Appellant pay restitution to Mallard Express and to the Arkansas Lottery Commission. Appellant appealed, arguing that the order of restitution amounted to double restitution and that the State had failed to show that the Commission had suffered an economic loss. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) the rules did not allow Appellant to appeal from her guilty plea, and (2) none of the exceptions to the rule that a defendant cannot appeal from a guilty plea applied. View "Spires v. State" on Justia Law