Karen R. Baker

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 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

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

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

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

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

In Hall v. State, petitioner Androus Hall sought to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for a writ of error coram nobis following his 1997 convictions for aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and attempted rape. Hall alleged defects in the trial and appellate processes, insufficient evidence due to lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence, and the existence of newly discovered evidence. The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that claims of trial or appellate court errors and challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence do not fall within the limited grounds for the writ, which is reserved for fundamental errors extrinsic to the record such as insanity at trial, coerced pleas, withheld material evidence, or third-party confessions. The court emphasized that coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy not available to retry a case or revisit issues that could have been raised earlier.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Willie James Noble's appeal from the Lee County Circuit Court's denial of his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123. Noble, convicted in 2015 of first-degree murder and multiple terroristic acts, claimed the judgment was illegal because the trial court ordered a firearm enhancement to run consecutively to his murder sentence. The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that Noble was no longer incarcerated in Lee County, having been transferred to a facility in Pulaski County, and that a habeas petition must be filed in the circuit court where the prisoner is held in custody to establish proper jurisdiction, as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-105 and related precedents. The dissent argued that jurisdiction had been properly established at the time of filing and appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Roderick R. Williams filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in the Arkansas Supreme Court to compel circuit judge Steven Porch to rule on a pending 2011 Rule 37.1 postconviction petition, along with related motions for a transcript, counsel, and in forma pauperis status, after the filings had remained unaddressed for years following Williams's convictions for capital murder and other offenses. The court granted the petition in part, ordering Judge Porch to issue rulings on the pending matters within 120 days, but denied without prejudice the requests to direct specific outcomes such as vacating the convictions, holding an evidentiary hearing, or granting a new trial. The core reasoning was that mandamus enforces a judge's ministerial duty to timely act on filed pleadings, regardless of their merits, but does not extend to controlling discretionary judicial decisions like whether to appoint counsel or conduct a hearing under Rule 37.3.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved DeSoto Gathering Company LLC challenging ad valorem tax assessments on its gas compressors and related equipment in Faulkner County, Arkansas. DeSoto's nonlawyer tax manager filed the initial appeal petitions from the Board of Equalization to the county court, prompting the county assessor to move to dismiss on grounds that the filings constituted the unauthorized practice of law and deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that only a licensed attorney may properly initiate such appeals under Arkansas law and that the defect could not be cured by later amended petitions filed by counsel.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involves former employees of Industrial Welding Supplies suing the company and its acquirer Airgas for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging they were not paid for earned but unused vacation time following the 2012 acquisition and their subsequent termination. The employees sought class certification for similarly situated workers across multiple states. The circuit court granted certification, and the defendants appealed, arguing failures in commonality, predominance of common issues, and superiority of the class action method. The Arkansas Supreme Court remanded with instructions, holding that the certification order lacked sufficient findings on the Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requirements to permit meaningful appellate review.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns petitioner Charles Green's pro se motion under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Criminal 19 for a copy of his trial transcript in a criminal matter. The majority granted the motion but ordered that the transcript be provided in electronic format. Justice Baker concurred in the decision to grant the transcript but dissented as to the format, contending that Green's incarceration establishes a compelling need for a paper photocopy under Rule 19(a) because an incarcerated person lacks the ability to access electronic documents.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sylvester v. State, the appellant challenged the denial of his pro se petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 following his 2015 convictions for kidnapping, rape, and aggravated robbery, which resulted in three life sentences. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not calling his mother as a mitigation witness regarding his childhood trauma and mental health history, and he raised additional claims about an inconclusive DNA report and the trial court's denial of his posttrial motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the choice not to call the witness was a matter of reasonable trial strategy, that the DNA claim was waived due to lack of a trial court ruling, and that the motion for new trial issue was not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding because it could have been raised on direct appeal. The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance claims and found no clear error by the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

Terrick Nooner filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wendy Kelley, director of the Arkansas Department of Correction, and President Donald Trump, alleging violations of his rights, along with multiple related motions including for injunctions and discovery. The circuit court denied the motions on May 12, 2017, because Nooner had not provided proof of service of the complaint and pleadings as required by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Nooner appealed the denial and filed additional motions and petitions for writs of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the order was not final and appealable under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(a) since it did not terminate the action, end the litigation, or conclude the parties' rights, as proper service had not been effected.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, Virginia Ann Hyatt was convicted by a Miller County jury of capital murder in the December 2013 death of Patricia Wheelington and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, Hyatt argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient direct and circumstantial evidence of premeditated and deliberate purpose. The Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the appellate record was incomplete and unclear regarding whether key exhibits, including surveillance videos and photographs (State’s Exhibits 191–196), had been shown to the jury or were decipherable. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the circuit court to settle the record pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(a) and Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e), without addressing the merits of the sufficiency claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nicholas Holloway's appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, following his guilty plea to first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence in connection with a shooting death. Holloway initially claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in his Rule 37 petition but abandoned those arguments on appeal, instead seeking review related to a writ of error coram nobis. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that its grant of the motion for rule on clerk was limited to the Rule 37 petition and that the abandoned claims required affirmance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Arthur L. Hicks Jr.'s appeal from his conviction for capital murder in the 2014 shooting death of Daniel Ruffin, which occurred during an alleged attempted robbery; Hicks was sentenced to life imprisonment plus seven years for use of a firearm. On appeal, Hicks argued that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony from an emergency medical technician under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule and that the evidence was insufficient to support a directed verdict on the capital murder charge. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the victim's statements to the EMT describing the circumstances of the shooting were admissible because they were made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment and were reasonably pertinent to that purpose, and that the evidence presented at trial, including eyewitness accounts and the victim's statements, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brown v. State, the appellant sought declaratory relief to enforce an alleged plea agreement that would have made him eligible for parole after four years, claiming the Arkansas Department of Correction violated the agreement by requiring him to serve 100 percent of his 192-month sentence for attempted first-degree murder. The trial court denied the petition, finding it lacked authority to override the ADC's parole determination. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the case after a de novo review, holding that Brown failed to join the ADC director as a necessary party to the action, resulting in the absence of a justiciable controversy over which the circuit court had jurisdiction under the declaratory-judgment statute. Because the record showed Brown could not prevail, the appeal was dismissed as moot, rendering his motion for an extension of time to file a brief unnecessary.

criminal lawprocedure

Clarence Ashby sought to challenge a risk assessment by the Sex Offender Community Notification Assessment Committee under Arkansas's Sex Offender Registration Act by filing a petition for a writ of prohibition, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the in forma pauperis petition, and Ashby appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Ashby's underlying petition failed to state a colorable cause of action because a writ of prohibition applies only to inferior courts or tribunals exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power, not to executive state agencies like the assessment committee, and because Ashby had not named a necessary party. The court noted that the petition sought to correct an already-made agency determination rather than restrain an ongoing proceeding outside a court's jurisdiction. As a result, no findings on indigency were required, and the appeal was resolved as a matter of law.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bell v. State, the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed an appeal from the denial of Albert D. Bell's pro se petition to correct his sentence under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111. Bell, convicted in 1994 of two counts of first-degree murder as a juvenile and sentenced to two consecutive life terms, argued that his sentences were facially illegal under the Eighth Amendment due to his youth, accomplice status, and evolving standards of decency as recognized in cases like Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the life sentences fell within the statutory range for Class Y felonies and were not illegal on their face, and that prior rulings had already addressed and rejected similar claims regarding juvenile sentencing and accomplice liability for homicide. The decision emphasized that challenges to the sentences did not raise jurisdictional issues that could be raised at any time.

criminal law