Brandon Harrison

In January 2016, the Arkansas Department of Human Services removed Patricia Burleson’s three children after finding the family home in squalid condition and the parents unaware that a young child had left or that an officer had entered the residence; the children were later adjudicated dependent-neglected due to unsafe conditions and the mother’s positive drug test. Burleson was ordered to complete multiple services, including drug screens, counseling, a psychological evaluation, stable housing and employment, and resolution of criminal matters, but over the following year she showed minimal compliance, tested positive for methamphetamine, failed to complete key assessments until shortly before the hearing, moved without notice, and had no visits with the children after November 2016. The circuit court terminated her parental rights on the “subsequent factors” ground and a best-interest finding; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence of ongoing instability, risk of harm, and the children’s adoptability supported both the statutory ground and the conclusion that termination served the children’s need for permanency.

family law

The case involves Kristina Johnston’s appeal of a Lonoke County Circuit Court permanency-planning order in a dependency-neglect proceeding concerning her three children. The case began in February 2016 after Johnston’s arrest left the children without a caregiver; she stipulated that they were dependent-neglected due to inadequate housing and was ordered to complete a case plan that included stable housing and employment, drug treatment, counseling, and parenting classes. After a year of services, the circuit court found Johnston had not achieved the required stability and that returning the children to her was not in their best interest. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the findings of repeated short-term housing, lack of consistent employment, incomplete counseling, and a history of instability that created potential harm, and that it was not left with a firm conviction that the circuit court erred.

family law

The case arose after Bessie Glass requested a copy of a Pulaski County jail transport manifest listing the inmates and detainees on a vehicle during her nephew’s escape attempt; Sheriff Doc Holladay and Sergeant Lesa Warner denied the request under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act’s “undisclosed investigation” exemption, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6), then later provided the document. Glass sued, and the circuit court ruled that the manifest was a non-investigatory log of names, dates, and times rather than internal work product detailing an investigation. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exemption did not apply because the document was akin to routine jail logs and shift sheets that the supreme court had previously found subject to disclosure in Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Glass.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Victoria Hardy, an employee of the Sebastian County Sheriff's Department, who suffered two compensable right-knee injuries in 2012 and 2013, underwent total knee replacement, and later developed a stutter as a side effect of medication for nerve damage. Hardy sought additional workers' compensation benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a), claiming the Department unreasonably refused to return her to work despite available positions within her medical restrictions, while the Department argued it had acted reasonably due to her ongoing medication-related communication problems and lack of an updated doctor's release. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission awarded the benefits, finding that the Department had not shown reasonable cause to deny her return and crediting testimony that suitable jobs existed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision because it properly weighed credibility and resolved conflicts in favor of the supervisor's testimony that accommodations were possible once medication issues resolved.

labor & employment

Christopher Cummings was convicted by a jury in Faulkner County Circuit Court of multiple felonies, including two counts of attempted capital murder with firearm enhancements, drug and firearm possession offenses, and others arising from a May 2015 high-speed chase in which he fired at pursuing police officers, fled on foot, and resisted arrest. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress an incriminating statement he gave police after waiving Miranda rights and by refusing to lower his $1 million pretrial bond. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld admission of the statement based on officers’ testimony that Cummings appeared to understand his rights, was not coerced or threatened, and had been medically cleared, despite his claims of a head injury from the arrest. The court also held the bond challenge was abandoned because the proper vehicle was a timely writ of certiorari rather than a post-conviction appeal, rendering the issue moot after trial.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Wilson v. State, Regina Wilson appealed a circuit court order determining the start date for postjudgment interest on an award of attorney’s fees and costs after she prevailed in a jury trial under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act. The December 2015 judgment on the $127,000 verdict stated that attorney’s fees and costs would bear 10% interest, but the court did not quantify the fees ($201,250) and costs until an April 2016 order. Wilson argued that interest should run from the December 2015 judgment date, citing precedents on modified judgments, while the State contended that interest accrues only once the amount is fixed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that interest begins when the fees are quantified in dollars and cents, holding that a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision directly controlled the issue and rendered earlier cases inapplicable.

procedurelabor & employment

The case involved Larry Williams's appeal of his conviction for failing to comply with Arkansas sex-offender registration and address-verification requirements under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-904, after he was released from prison in 2014 for a 1993 rape conviction. The circuit court found him guilty following a bench trial and sentenced him to three years in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the registration obligations applied to Williams under § 12-12-905 because he was serving a sentence for a qualifying sex offense on the statute’s August 1, 1997 effective date. It further ruled that the requirement in § 12-12-906 for an explicit registration directive on the original judgment and commitment order did not apply retroactively to Williams’s 1993 conviction, as that provision was enacted in 2001 without any clear retroactive directive from the legislature.

criminal law

In Newby v. Century Industries, Inc., worker Billy Newby appealed the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of his claim for a compensable lower-back injury from a March 2012 workplace incident while employed at Century Industries, along with his request for continued medical treatment for a separately stipulated compensable cervical/trapezius injury. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision in full. The court held that substantial evidence supported the denial of the back-injury claim because initial medical records showed no mention of lower-back pain, later exams and an MRI revealed only preexisting degenerative changes rather than an acute work-related injury, Newby’s testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements, and a functional-capacity exam indicated unreliable effort. On the request for additional medical benefits, the court found that no physicians had recommended any further specific treatment after Newby’s healing period ended, and he had acknowledged that prior physical therapy and medication had not been helpful.

labor & employment

The case involved Amanda Lessley’s appeal of a Benton County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to three young children, after the Arkansas Department of Human Services took custody following her arrest for methamphetamine delivery and amid a prior history of neglect findings. Lessley challenged the court’s grant of a post-judgment Rule 60 motion, its refusal to apply the Indian Child Welfare Act despite tribal-affiliation claims, and its best-interest finding that the children were adoptable. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination in full. It held that letters from the Cherokee Nation established the children were not Indian children under ICWA because Lessley had not supplied the information needed to confirm enrollment eligibility. On adoptability, the court ruled that the caseworker’s testimony of reasonable likelihood of adoption was sufficient evidence, and any inconsistencies in the record could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

family lawprocedurefederal powercivil rights

In this Arkansas dependency-neglect case, the circuit court initially adjudicated Lakhraj Manohar as the biological and legal father of newborn Y.M. after the child and her mother tested positive for drugs, ordering him to complete a case plan. Later DNA testing showed a 0% chance he was the biological father, and the court determined he was not married to the mother at the time of birth, making him neither the biological nor legal father. Manohar appealed the court’s order finding he had no parental rights and dismissing him from the termination proceedings, arguing lack of proper notice and that the court should not have addressed paternity on its own motion. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that once paternity was disproven, Manohar had no rights to terminate under precedent, and his procedural arguments were not preserved because they were not raised below.

family lawprocedure

In Horton v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed Terra Nichelle Horton’s bench-trial conviction for robbery after she allegedly stole a $1 bottle of laundry detergent from a North Little Rock Dollar General store and then physically resisted a loss-prevention officer who confronted her outside. The officer testified that he saw Horton conceal the item in her purse, that her purse visibly bulged afterward, and that she pushed him, struck him with her car door, and drove into him while fleeing; a responding police officer arrested her nearby after viewing parking-lot video. Horton moved to dismiss, arguing that no stolen property was recovered and that inconsistencies undermined proof of a theft, but the circuit court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officer’s testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supplied substantial evidence that Horton employed physical force with the purpose of committing a misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension immediately afterward, satisfying Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-102.

criminal law

Larry Pingatore, a Union Pacific Railroad employee in an employee-assistance program for alcoholism, sued the railroad and drug tester Dennis Hatley for false-light invasion of privacy and defamation. He alleged that frequent workplace urine tests—more than the program required—were administered indiscreetly at a public guard shack in West Memphis, Arkansas, allowing truck drivers and others to observe and infer he was a drug user, which led to stigma and comments. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court held that Pingatore failed to show publication of any private or inaccurate information, that testing frequency or location required secrecy, or that any false statement was made, as the regulated drug-testing process itself did not constitute defamation.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Jacqueline McLennan appealed a Pulaski County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her children A.R. and J.M. after the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected due to inadequate supervision linked to her drug use and failure to protect them from sexual exploitation by relatives. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, granting her counsel’s motion to withdraw after reviewing a no-merit brief. The court held that sufficient evidence supported termination on the twelve-month failure-to-remedy ground, as McLennan had not completed required services such as a psychological evaluation, counseling, or drug treatment despite the children being out of her custody for over twelve months. It also upheld the best-interest determination, citing the ongoing risk of harm from sexual exploitation and evidence that the children were adoptable, with fifty-three families identified as potential placements.

family law

In Jones v. Sanchez, Anthony Jones appealed a five-year order of protection that April Sanchez obtained for herself and their daughter, alleging that Jones had threatened to kill her and kidnap the child upon his upcoming release from prison. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the order after a hearing Jones did not attend. The court held that Domestic Abuse Act cases are special proceedings exempt from standard civil procedure rules on response times and weekend exclusions; Jones received the required five days’ notice under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-204, the court had no duty to arrange his transport from prison, and he provided no evidence refuting the in-person threats.

family lawprocedure

Carolyn Thomas, as administratrix of Alfred Thomas Sr.’s estate, sued anesthesiologist Dr. Carol Meadors and her practice for medical negligence, alleging that Meadors failed to perform an adequate presurgical evaluation of the patient’s severe heart conditions and did not halt an elective revascularization procedure after Thomas experienced a sharp blood-pressure drop immediately following anesthesia induction. Thomas died three days later from cardiogenic shock. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Thomas’s two expert witnesses could not state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the alleged negligence was the proximate cause of death; their testimony was either speculative, addressed only the chance of awakening from anesthesia, or described a “contributing factor” rather than the required causal link.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In 2015, Arthur Vern Macleod III pled guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault and received a sentence of 120 months’ probation. The State later petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging multiple violations including failure to register as a sex offender, failure to report for required assessments, testing positive for alcohol, and failing to pay fines and fees. After a hearing, the Johnson County Circuit Court found that Macleod had violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment plus five years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Macleod’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief asserting that an appeal would be wholly frivolous. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the record under Anders v. California and related rules, determined that the evidence supported the revocation because only one inexcusable violation was required, and found no issues of arguable merit, leading it to affirm the circuit court’s decision and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

criminal law

The case involved the revocation of Corderro Foster’s probation after he pled guilty in 2014 to possession of cocaine and was placed on three years’ probation with standard conditions, including not committing new crimes, not using drugs, reporting to his officer, and paying fines. The State petitioned to revoke based on new allegations including aggravated robbery, residential burglary, theft, drug use, failure to report, and escape from custody; at a 2016 hearing, police officers testified about Foster’s involvement in those incidents, supported by victim identifications, DNA, fingerprints, and admissions. The circuit court found the State had proven violations by a preponderance of the evidence, revoked probation, and sentenced Foster to six years in prison. On appeal, Foster’s counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders v. California, asserting no arguable grounds for reversal; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that evidence of even one probation violation—here, committing new criminal offenses—was sufficient and that the appeal presented no meritorious issues.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute over the administration of Joyce Allred’s estate after her death, centering on whether a 2012 family-settlement agreement signed by Allred and her three children was valid and enforceable. The agreement addressed management of her affairs during life via a limited guardianship and required equal division of remaining assets after her death, with an initial $170,000 adjustment to two of the children. Sherry Miesner appealed the circuit court’s order approving the agreement, distributing assets, and awarding fees, arguing that the initial petition to appoint an administrator was filed by a nonlawyer (rendering later orders void) and that the agreement itself was unenforceable due to lack of mutual assent, ambiguity, and mutual mistake. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the parties had manifested assent to the agreement’s terms by signing it, that Miesner’s arguments about successors in interest and blood relatives did not invalidate formation, and that her mutual-mistake claim had not been properly pleaded or ruled on below.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Mason v. Robertson, Tonya Mason appealed a White County Circuit Court order addressing visitation and child support for the parties’ autistic son L.R. after their 2008 divorce and subsequent custody modifications. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s rulings, which required a nanny to be present during Mason’s visitation, limited her to one additional visitation per month with two weeks’ advance notice, and credited Robertson with $3,900 in average monthly extraordinary expenses for L.R. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion, holding that the visitation conditions were justified by the child’s special needs and the parties’ documented inability to communicate effectively, while the expense figure was supported by Robertson’s testimony and exhibits showing a three-year average of costs such as nannies, medical care, and related items, resulting in a reduction of his child-support obligation from $2,200 to $1,950.

family law

In this boundary dispute, adjacent landowners Sharon Barton and the Bryants sued Bobby and Sheila Brockinton in Faulkner County Circuit Court, alleging trespass and seeking damages after the Brockintons built storage units they claimed encroached on the Bryants’ property. Following a bench trial with conflicting surveyor testimony, the circuit court ruled for the Brockintons, adopting the boundary line from their expert Tim Tyler’s survey. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s factual finding—that Tyler’s survey best approximated the original government range line—was not clearly erroneous when weighed against the Bryants’ contrary surveys. The court applied the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard to dueling expert opinions and rejected the Bryants’ additional arguments about missing witnesses and an excluded diary as either unsupported or moot once the boundary was upheld.

propertytorts & liability