Donald L. Corbin

This case involved a challenge to Patrick Roberson's candidacy for two positions—Justice of the Peace and Helena-West Helena City Treasurer—in elections scheduled for the same date. The Phillips County Circuit Court granted a petition for mandamus and declaratory judgment, disqualifying Roberson from the City Treasurer race under Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-5-111, which prohibits running for more than one state, county, or municipal office if elections are held on the same day, and denied his request to withdraw from the Justice of the Peace election. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification, interpreting the statute to bar multiple candidacies within the same category of offices. The court also addressed procedural aspects, including the timing of filings and vote counting, but dismissed parts of the appeal related to certification.

elections

The case involved a dispute over the timing of municipal elections for mayor, city clerk, and treasurer in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, after Deborah Hollingsworth won the 2012 mayoral election with a term listed as running through 2016. Hollingsworth sought a writ of mandamus from the Jefferson County Circuit Court to prevent the Jefferson County Election Commission from holding those offices' elections in 2014. The circuit court granted the requested writ, but the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the Commission's appeal as moot because the election deadlines had passed without any candidates being certified for the ballot and because the circuit court had not issued a written declaratory judgment on the underlying term-length question that could qualify for an exception to the mootness doctrine.

electionsprocedure

The case Martin v. Kohls involved a challenge by registered voters to Act 595 of 2013, an Arkansas statute requiring voters to present proof of identity such as a government-issued photo ID when casting ballots at the polls. The Pulaski County Circuit Court declared the Act unconstitutional on its face, issued a preliminary injunction, and barred enforcement by the Secretary of State and State Board of Election Commissioners. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the Act was invalid because the legislature did not enact it as an amendment to Amendment 51 or secure the two-thirds vote required by section 19 of that amendment for voter-identification measures. The court declined to reach additional claims under Article 3 of the Arkansas Constitution, finding the procedural defect sufficient to nullify the law.

electionscivil rights

The case involved Jeremy Clay Thompson, who was arrested for theft of property but failed to appear in district court before any formal charges were filed against him. He was later convicted of failure to appear as a Class C felony and sentenced to seven years in prison. Thompson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence because no criminal charge was pending at the time of his failure to appear. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the conviction, holding that the relevant statute requires a pending charge to classify failure to appear as a Class C felony, and the State failed to prove one existed. The court interpreted the statute's plain language to distinguish between the elements of the offense and the factors for its classification as a felony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a breach-of-contract action in which Real Forms, LLC sued the Arkansas Realtors Association after the Association terminated a 2010 agreement for development of software to create and manage electronic real-estate forms. The trial court denied the Association's post-verdict motions for JNOV or a new trial after a jury found in Real Forms' favor, and Real Forms cross-appealed the denial of its request for attorneys' fees and costs. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the appeal, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of breach, including the Association's failure to follow the contract's required termination procedures such as providing notice of deficiencies and an opportunity to cure. The court reversed and remanded the cross-appeal for further proceedings on fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Derek Sales's appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.5, following his convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery, for which he received a death sentence and life imprisonment. Sales argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by mentioning the possibility of a gubernatorial pardon if sentenced to life and by referring to his escape from jail during opening statements. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's denial of relief, concluding that the pardon reference was a strategic decision and that the escape reference, even if improper, did not prejudice the sentencing outcome because the escape conviction could have been admitted as an aggravating factor anyway.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nooner v. State, Terrick Terrell Nooner moved the Arkansas Supreme Court to recall the mandate from his 1995 direct appeal affirming his capital murder conviction and death sentence. Nooner argued that the court should have sua sponte identified errors in the trial court's handling of mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, where the jury found no mitigating circumstances despite testimony about his troubled background, and that recalling the mandate was required by the Eighth Amendment and the interests of justice. The court denied the motion, holding that Nooner did not show the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify recalling the direct-appeal mandate in this death penalty case with extensive prior proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pedraza v. State, the defendant, charged with capital murder of his stepdaughter, reached a plea agreement reducing the charge to first-degree murder with sentencing by the already-selected jury, after which he sought additional voir dire of those jurors due to the changed circumstances; the circuit court denied the request and imposed a life sentence following the sentencing proceeding. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court reasoned that the qualification of the jury was an integral condition of the plea agreement, that Pedraza had waived prior errors, and that he failed to demonstrate any prejudice to the jurors from the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned child-custody and decision-making orders entered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court in 2012 regarding the parties' two minor children. The circuit court found a material change in circumstances sufficient to transfer certain educational and medical decision-making authority to the father but left primary physical custody with the mother; the father appealed seeking physical custody as well. After the court of appeals reversed the circuit court, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review. Because a subsequent temporary custody order and a pending motion for permanent change of custody had altered the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that any decision on the 2012 orders would be advisory and therefore remanded the matter to the circuit court while vacating the court of appeals opinion.

family law

The case involved The Ballard Group suing BP Lubricants USA and employee Tracy Curtis King over claims that King orchestrated a plan for her relatives to join a competitor using Ballard's confidential information from marketing contracts with BP and Wal-Mart vendors. Ballard asserted breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business expectancy, and civil conspiracy. The circuit court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim but reversed and remanded the remaining claims, ruling that the amended complaint pleaded sufficient facts for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The opinion also interpreted Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in the context of successive dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Anne L. Thompson's challenge to the will and revocable trust of her deceased husband, H. Ripley Thompson, after she elected to take against the will as his surviving spouse. The circuit court found that the decedent had intended to deprive her of her marital rights by transferring most assets (valued over $5.8 million) into the trust, leaving the probate estate with only about $230,000, and therefore included the trust assets in the estate for purposes of calculating her elective share under Arkansas law. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's findings on intent were not clearly erroneous and that the trust assets must be considered to prevent the deprivation of the spouse's rights. The decision addressed the validity of the 2009 will and trust documents in light of prior versions and the decedent's actions. Dissenting justices argued that this expanded the law beyond established probate principles and undermined standard estate planning tools.

family lawproperty

In Bailey v. Martin, Valerie Bailey appealed a Pulaski County Circuit Court order granting declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus that removed her from the ballot as a candidate for circuit judge, ruling that periods of administrative suspension of her law license for nonpayment of fees and CLE noncompliance rendered her ineligible under Amendment 80, section 16 of the Arkansas Constitution. Appellee Kristen Hulse, a registered voter, had challenged Bailey's qualifications, and election officials took no position on eligibility but argued the appeal was moot. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no relief was available because ballots had already been printed, mailed to absentee voters, and early voting had begun, rendering the issues untimely and moot. A concurrence noted that while companion cases suggested Bailey might qualify, fashioning alternative remedies like delaying the election would risk unintended consequences and constitutional concerns.

electionsprocedure

The case concerned whether Valerie Bailey was eligible to run as a candidate for circuit judge under Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution, given that her law license had been administratively suspended for periods between 2002 and 2011 due to unpaid fees and CLE noncompliance. The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted declaratory judgment and mandamus relief to challenger Kristen Hulse, ruling Bailey unqualified and ordering her removed from the ballot. On appeal, Bailey argued that the suspensions did not revoke her license, that reinstatement restored eligibility, and that due process was violated, while Hulse and election officials countered that the appeal was moot or untimely because ballots had been printed and early voting begun. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no effective relief was available given the advanced stage of the May 2014 election process.

electionsprocedure

In Guevara v. State, the appellant sought postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 after his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and life sentence as a habitual offender, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on grounds including conflicts of interest, inadequate investigation, failure to convey plea offers, and improper advice on sentence enhancements. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, relying in part on email correspondence between trial counsel and a prosecutor that was attached to the state's response. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded, holding that the emails were extraneous to the record and could not be considered, and that the files and record did not conclusively demonstrate the appellant was not entitled to relief, requiring an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Sandra Nance's convictions on five misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty after authorities seized approximately 140 dogs from her property following complaints about their living conditions in extreme heat. Nance appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence from the search, challenged the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-62-106 on due process and separation of powers grounds, and sought return of the dogs; the State cross-appealed the circuit court's order returning some dogs without full payment of care costs. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the suppression motion but dismissed Nance's appeal and the State's cross-appeal of the supplemental order on custody and costs. The court reasoned that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the supplemental order because it concerned civil remedies for seized animals rather than matters arising directly from the criminal proceedings, and jurisdiction for such issues was not properly conferred by statute or court rules in this context.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In Chitwood v. Chitwood, the adult daughter sued her father to recover alleged unpaid child support that accrued between February 1999 and May 2004 after the parents' 1993 divorce. The Benton County Circuit Court granted the father's motion for summary judgment, finding no arrearage existed. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a prior appellate decision had already determined the mother was equitably estopped from collecting support for the same period and that the children's needs had been met during that time, rendering any current claim inequitable. The court also dismissed the father's related third-party indemnification claim against the mother as moot.

family law

The case involved Justin Thornton appealing his conviction for capital murder in the Lincoln County Circuit Court, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the shooting death of Kwame Turner. Thornton argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted with premeditation and deliberation. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the charge, holding that the evidence presented by the State did not sufficiently establish the required mental state for capital murder. The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including blood stains and bullets found near Thornton's residence, but concluded it fell short of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved Justin Thornton appealing his conviction for capital murder after a bench trial in Lincoln County Circuit Court, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the shooting death of Kwame Turner. Thornton argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted with premeditation and deliberation. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the capital murder conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish the required intent for capital murder.

criminal law

In State v. Khabeer, the Arkansas Supreme Court considered the State's appeal from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order terminating Samuel Khabeer's obligation to register as a sex offender under Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-919. Khabeer had entered a guilty plea in 1989 to first-degree sexual abuse and sought relief after fifteen years, claiming he met the statutory criteria including that he was not likely to pose a threat to others. The circuit court granted the motion following a hearing, and the Supreme Court affirmed, applying the clearly erroneous standard of review to the civil proceeding and deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations based on the applicant's testimony and demeanor. The court found sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Khabeer satisfied the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari to halt proceedings in a wrongful-discharge suit filed against it and university officials in Crawford County Circuit Court, after the circuit court denied the Board's motion to dismiss on grounds including venue and sovereign immunity. The court had previously granted review limited to the venue issue while addressing sovereign immunity in a companion interlocutory appeal. In this opinion, the court held the petition moot because its separate decision granting sovereign immunity dismissed the underlying case, eliminating any live controversy. It reasoned that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar that must be resolved before addressing the procedural question of venue, and that courts do not issue advisory opinions on moot issues.

procedure