David M. Glover

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case concerns the third appeal by Owen Kelly challenging alimony orders entered by the Washington County Circuit Court in his divorce from Mandy Kelly. After prior reversals finding the initial alimony award excessive and improperly tied to child-support abatements, the circuit court on remand reduced alimony to $3,087.50 per month while declaring that Mandy had an established need of $10,615.50 monthly and denying Owen any credit for overpayments made under the vacated orders. The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its mandate by making a new factual finding of established need that could prejudice future proceedings, and that equity required crediting Owen for alimony overpayments made after the prior reversal (seven months totaling $42,304.50) through a $1,000 monthly offset against ongoing obligations, while affirming the reduced alimony amount itself.

family lawprocedure

Dustin Merchant was convicted by a Howard County jury of theft of utility property, a Class B felony, after he stole copper wiring from an out-of-service locomotive owned by Arkansas Southern Railroad; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years in prison plus a fine and restitution. On appeal, Merchant argued that the stolen items did not qualify as utility property under the statute, that the jury instructions omitted required elements, that the trial court should have instructed the jury on misdemeanor theft as a lesser-included offense, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that Merchant’s sufficiency challenge was not preserved because his directed-verdict motion failed to specify any particular evidentiary deficiency as required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1, and that his remaining arguments were likewise unpreserved because they were never presented to the trial court or were not properly requested.

criminal lawprocedure

In Vest v. Vest, a 2008 divorce decree awarded Alicia Vest (now Buford) custody of the couple’s two young children primarily because Cory Vest was struggling with alcoholism; after Cory achieved sobriety and the parties remarried, he petitioned in 2015 to modify custody. The Franklin County Circuit Court found a material change in circumstances—chiefly the older child’s post-divorce diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, which imposed ongoing monitoring demands that heightened stress in the mother’s household and prompted the child’s expressed preference to live with her father—and concluded that transferring custody to Cory served the children’s best interests. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining both the existence of a material change and the best-interest factors, which included the child’s description of calmer, more supportive diabetes management at her father’s home, the mother’s open disdain for the father, and the likelihood that the father would better foster the children’s relationship with their mother.

family law

In Dace v. Doss, Harold Dace appealed the White County Circuit Court’s refusal to fully terminate his court-ordered alimony payments to his ex-wife Debra Doss after her 2015 remarriage, arguing that the award should have ended automatically, that her needs had changed, and that recent statutory amendments undermined permanent alimony. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision, which reduced alimony from $619 to $234 per month based on Doss’s imputed minimum-wage income, reasonable expenses, and her new husband’s contributions to housing, while ordering Dace to pay over $5,000 in back alimony. The court held that permanent alimony remains modifiable only upon a significant material change in circumstances, that remarriage does not automatically terminate such an award under the pre-2013 version of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-312 applicable to this 2012 divorce decree, and that the circuit court acted within its discretion by weighing the parties’ financial needs and resources without relying on an improper mathematical formula or unpreserved evidentiary issues.

family law

The case involved Sabreann Baxter’s appeal from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her infant son, J.B., who was taken into Arkansas Department of Human Services custody at birth after testing positive for methamphetamine. Baxter’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief asserting no arguable grounds for reversal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination while granting counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court reviewed the record de novo and concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported at least one statutory ground for termination—subsequent factors, abandonment, and aggravated circumstances—along with a best-interest finding, based on Baxter’s failure to attend any hearings until the termination proceeding, complete any offered services, maintain contact with the child or DHS, or achieve stability while facing new criminal charges. The court also determined that Baxter’s pro se points did not raise any preserved or meritorious issues that would warrant reversal.

family law

In this post-divorce case, Jessi Barham and Daniel Bowman disputed child support arrears, visitation modifications, and mutual contempt allegations after Barham moved with the children to Washington and Bowman later returned to Arkansas. Barham petitioned for contempt over unpaid support and expenses, while Bowman counter-petitioned alleging interference with visitation and derogatory remarks to the children. Following a hearing, the trial court found both parties in contempt—sentencing Barham to jail time (partially suspended) and holding Bowman’s 30-day sentence in abeyance—modified visitation and support, determined Bowman owed nearly $20,000 in arrears, and awarded Barham attorney’s fees equal to 10% of the arrearage. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt findings and sanctions against Barham, the differing punishments, and the fee award, reasoning that evidence supported the rulings and the court had discretion in enforcement. The court remanded solely on the issue of statutory 10% interest on the unpaid support, which the trial court’s order had not addressed.

family law

David Eugene Lewis was convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver and sentenced to 1200 months in prison. After his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, he filed a Rule 37 petition challenging the calculation of his jail-time credit. The circuit court granted him 1194 days of credit, a ruling affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, and later denied his 2017 motion for a nunc pro tunc order seeking an additional 104 days. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine barred Lewis from relitigating the jail-credit issue, which had already been conclusively decided, and that the court could not revisit or overrule the Supreme Court’s prior determination.

criminal lawprocedure

Thomas Watson appealed a Sebastian County Circuit Court order terminating his parental rights to his daughter J.W., who had been removed from her mother’s custody in 2014 and again in 2015 due to drug-related issues and unsafe living conditions. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. The court held that termination was in J.W.’s best interest because the child was adoptable and would face potential harm if returned to Watson, who had been incarcerated for much of the case, had minimal involvement or progress toward reunification, and faced little likelihood of successful services given the aggravated-circumstances finding that he did not appeal. The decision emphasized the need for permanency over Watson’s arguments distinguishing the case from prior precedent.

family law

The case involved Tammie Curtis’s appeal of a Washington County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her young son, Q.C. Arkansas Department of Human Services had taken emergency custody after Curtis’s 2015 arrest on drug charges and endangering the welfare of a minor, leading to a dependency-neglect finding based on the child’s positive drug test and exposure to unsafe conditions. The circuit court changed the case goal to termination after Curtis failed to maintain stable housing, consistently submit to drug screens, or end her relationship with an unsuitable partner, despite partial compliance with the case plan. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the “subsequent factors” statutory ground for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest because of the likelihood of adoption and the potential harm from returning the child to Curtis. The court noted that proof of one ground was sufficient and that Curtis’s continued choices demonstrated she placed her own interests ahead of the child’s safety.

family law

Tyrome Harris appealed pro se from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s October 2016 order denying his Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief after he pleaded guilty to first-degree battery. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective on four grounds, including a conflict of interest, failure to honor plea terms, incorrect jail credit, and not advising him he would serve 100 percent of his fifteen-year sentence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals could not reach the merits of those claims because the record on appeal omitted key materials the trial court had relied on, such as the sentencing-hearing transcript showing counsel’s statements about the sentence. The court therefore remanded the case to the trial court to supplement the record within thirty days so that the appeal could proceed.

criminal lawprocedure

Don Paul Bales sued the City of Fort Smith after the Fort Smith Civil Service Commission upheld his termination from the police department, seeking reinstatement in circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-51-308 requires a notice of appeal to the Commission within thirty days of its decision and that this deadline is jurisdictional, demanding strict compliance. Bales’s notice, postmarked December 4, 2014, after the Commission’s November 4 oral ruling, was one day late. The City’s earlier statements about timeliness could not waive the defect, as jurisdictional requirements cannot be forfeited.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Rider v. Longbow Ranch, LLC, the Riders appealed a Stone County Circuit Court order that quieted title to a roughly 4.15-acre fenced strip of land along their southern and eastern boundaries in favor of adjoining landowner Longbow Ranch, LLC, after the Riders erected a new fence on the disputed strip in 2007. Longbow had sued claiming ownership by adverse possession (or alternatively by acquiescence), alleging continuous use of the enclosed area for cattle operations since at least 1966. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Longbow and its predecessors had maintained open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the fenced property for well over the seven-year statutory period through cattle farming, leasing arrangements that required fence maintenance, and other uses dating back to the 1960s and 1970s. The court further noted that any later acknowledgment of a possible boundary dispute could not divest title once it had vested by adverse possession.

property

Keenan Lamonte Lewis was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Jason Harris at an apartment complex in Little Rock and received a 31-year sentence plus a consecutive 15-year firearm enhancement. On appeal, Lewis challenged three issues: the trial court’s decision to allow the State to question his girlfriend on redirect about prior specific conduct, the exclusion of his testimony about Harris’s gang affiliation, and the sufficiency of the evidence given his self-defense claim. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the evidentiary rulings because Lewis had already introduced some gang-related evidence and additional testimony would have been cumulative, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s rejection of the justification defense.

criminal lawprocedure

In this post-divorce dispute, Bert Myers appealed a 2014 supplemental decree that awarded his ex-wife Suzie Ridgley a 33.7% share of his active-duty military retirement pay, which had not been vested or addressed in their 1999 divorce decree; Suzie cross-appealed the denial of a survivor benefit plan and moved to dismiss the appeal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the award of active-duty retirement benefits, affirmed the denial of the survivor benefit plan, and denied the motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that Arkansas precedent at the time of the original decree treated only vested military retirement as divisible marital property, so the 1999 decree properly divided only Bert’s vested reserve retirement and could not be modified years later to reach his later-vested active-duty benefits; it further held that a general reservation of jurisdiction in the decree did not preserve Suzie’s untimely claim for a survivor benefit plan.

family lawproperty