Karen R. Baker

MARK MYERS AND JANE DOE v. AMY FECHER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES, ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, INC.

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2021-12-16 · cited 3×

This case concerned whether Blackberry Messenger messages between former Arkansas Department of Information Systems director Mark Myers and vendor representative Jane Doe, with whom Myers had a personal relationship, were public records subject to disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act following a request by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The Pulaski County Circuit Court ordered the messages released after finding they qualified as public records. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that certain messages were purely personal with no public value and that the circuit court must apply a constitutional right-to-privacy analysis to distinguish disclosable business-related content from exempt personal communications.

civil rightsprocedure

ANTHONY BROWN v. HANNAH TOWELL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR AND WES EDDINGTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2021-03-18 · cited 19×

Anthony Brown sued Craighead County tax assessor Hannah Towell and tax collector Wes Eddington, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the county's assessment and collection of $138.83 in delinquent personal property taxes on a 2005 Ford F150 truck after Brown moved from Craighead to Pulaski County. Brown alleged that the county lacked authority to assess or collect taxes on property no longer located or owned by a resident there and that he was denied due process. The Craighead County Circuit Court dismissed the suit under Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted and for failure to join the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration as a necessary party. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.

taxespropertyprocedure

JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE AND LESLIE RUTLEDGE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SAFE SURGERY ARKANSAS, A BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE AND DR. LAURIE BARBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SAFE SURGERY ARKANSAS

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2021-03-11 · cited 14×

This case involved a challenge by Safe Surgery Arkansas, a ballot question committee seeking to refer Act 579 of 2019 to voters, against Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge regarding the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-601(b). The statute requires sponsors of statewide initiative petitions to obtain state and federal criminal background checks on paid canvassers within 30 days before they begin collecting signatures and to certify to the Secretary of State that each paid canvasser passed such checks. The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction and ruled the entire subsection unconstitutional; on appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's plain language mandates both obtaining the checks and certifying passage, that all subdivisions of section 7-9-601(b) are interrelated and dependent, and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

elections

RICO BENTON v. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2020-06-11 · cited 5×

In 1995, Rico Benton pleaded guilty to capital murder and received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole at age twenty-one. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller v. Alabama and related cases because he was young and immature, even though over eighteen. The circuit court denied the petition, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Miller's prohibition on mandatory life-without-parole sentences applies only to juveniles under eighteen and does not extend to adult offenders. The court reasoned that Benton's judgment was facially valid and the trial court had jurisdiction, so no grounds existed for habeas relief. A dissent argued for an evidentiary hearing to consider broader Eighth Amendment principles.

criminal lawprocedure

JEFFREY MAREK v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2020-05-21 · cited 2×

The case involved petitioner Jeffrey Marek, who was convicted of aggravated assault on a family or household member and sought a belated appeal in the Arkansas Supreme Court, along with permission to proceed in forma pauperis and appointment of counsel. He alleged that his retained attorney failed to file a timely notice of appeal after being informed of his wish to appeal, but the attorney disputed this in an affidavit. The court remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing rather than resolving the motions directly. It reasoned that factual findings were needed on whether and when Marek communicated his appeal request, whether counsel complied with Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 16 on continued representation, and whether Marek qualified as indigent given his retained counsel and listed assets.

criminal lawprocedure

JARELL DAVIS TERRY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2020-05-21 · cited 3×

This case involves Jarell Davis Terry's appeal from his Drew County Circuit Court convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and theft of property, arising from the November 2017 shooting death of Christon Sheets during an alleged robbery of marijuana and guns at Sheets's home, where Terry and an accomplice were present. Terry challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, alleged abuse of discretion regarding a juror-misconduct claim, and argued that the record was inadequate concerning jury questions during deliberations after the case was remanded from a prior appeal. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was sufficient as the directed-verdict motions were properly denied and the jury's verdict stood, that any procedural issues with jury communications did not result in reversible prejudice because the defense was consulted and agreed to responses, and that related presence and record arguments were either unpreserved or rebutted by the supplemental record showing no error. The court conducted its mandatory Rule 4-3(i) review and found no prejudicial errors.

criminal lawprocedure

Affiliations

Decision record

Karen R. Baker

Affiliations

Decision record