Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Wilson v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29 · cited 1×
In Wilson v. State, Fredrick Leon Wilson was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 144 months in prison. His appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw under Anders v. California and Arkansas Rule 4-3(k), asserting that the appeal raised no meritorious issues after addressing certain adverse rulings. The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing. The court held that counsel had omitted multiple adverse rulings—including one during voir dire and others during the testimony of witnesses Alja Lane, Raquel Coleman, and Ahkeem Murphy—and that every adverse ruling must be identified and explained to satisfy the requirements for a no-merit appeal.
criminal lawprocedure
James v. Walchli
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29 · cited 1×
In James v. Walchli, a 2017 Arkansas Court of Appeals case, divorced parents Elizabeth James and Butch Lee Walchli disputed court orders concerning their two minor children, including James’s obligation to sign passport applications for an international trip, her request to establish child support, and Walchli’s request for attorney’s fees. The trial court directed James to cooperate with the passports, denied her child-support request, and awarded fees to Walchli; on appeal, the court held the passport issue moot, reversed the denial of child support for further proceedings, and affirmed the fee award. The appeals court reasoned that James had not challenged the trial court’s finding of contempt for violating its passport order, that the awarded fees were reasonably tied to that matter despite income disparity, and that the child-support issue required remand to properly address the parties’ circumstances.
family law
Beaty v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 2×
The case concerned Lisa Beaty’s appeal from a Washington County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her infant son, L.M., who had been removed from her custody after suffering life-threatening injuries inflicted by his father. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding that the record supported the circuit court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence. The court reasoned that the child had been subjected to aggravated circumstances, including extreme cruelty and life-threatening injury caused by the father (a registered sex offender) and Beaty’s decision to leave the child in his care; that termination was in the child’s best interest because he was adoptable and returning him to Beaty posed a risk of harm; and that Beaty demonstrated a lack of understanding of the child’s permanent medical needs. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo, found no meritorious issues in the no-merit brief or omitted adverse rulings, and concluded the circuit court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
family law
Miller v. Moore
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 3×
This case concerns an Arkansas adoption proceeding in which biological mother Brooke Miller consented to the adoption of her young child by her cousin and his wife, after which the trial court entered a final adoption decree on November 2, 2016, based on representations that the father was unknown. Miller later sought to revoke her consent and, along with Kerry Coleman—who claimed to be the child’s adjudicated biological father and who had received no notice—filed motions under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to vacate the decree; the trial court never ruled on those motions. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed Miller’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the arguments she raised on appeal were contained in her timely but unresolved Rule 60 motion and she had not obtained an extension of the notice-of-appeal deadline under Appellate Rule 4(b). The court remanded Coleman’s claims for further proceedings, holding that his motion properly asserted that the decree might be void for lack of required statutory notice and consent under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-9-206 and 9-9-212, and due process, issues the trial court had never addressed.
family lawprocedurecivil rights
Henderson v. Johnston
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 1×
Jennifer Henderson and Shane Johnston, unmarried parents of D.J. (born 2004), disputed the calculation of Shane’s child-support arrearages after an agreed 2011 order established paternity and set prospective support at $90 per week while reserving the issues of retroactive support and adjustments once Shane gained employment. The trial court awarded retroactive support only from November 3, 2010 (the date Shane filed his paternity petition) and abated his entire obligation for the period September 2012 through December 2014, when Jennifer and D.J. lived in Great Britain without providing contact information. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that retroactive support must also cover the period from 2008, when Shane stopped providing support, because he had previously contributed and never disputed paternity. The court further held that visitation interference does not justify abatement of support, because child-support obligations are owed to the child independently of the noncustodial parent’s relationship or contact with the child.
family law
Ashley Bancstock Co. v. Meredith
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08 · cited 2×
This case involved a declaratory-judgment action filed by Ashley Bancstock Company (ABC) against three of its shareholders, Paul Meredith, Richard Meredith, and John Posey. The shareholders had demanded under Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-26-715 to inspect and copy ABC’s corporate records from 2006 to 2014, citing concerns over significant losses tied to subsidiaries and potential breaches of duty by directors and officers. ABC refused and instead sued to clarify the scope of records it was required to provide and to seek limits on dissemination. The Ashley County Circuit Court ruled that the shareholders qualified under the statute and were entitled to all requested records, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the shareholders had been record holders for the required period, made their demand in good faith and for a proper purpose, and met the statutory criteria for inspection without any basis for denial or restriction under the statute.
business & regulatory