Cliff Hoofman

This case involved Richard Dean Bailey's appeal of his second-degree murder conviction from a Garland County jury, which sentenced him to 360 months in prison. Bailey contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the state's evidence was insufficient to disprove his justification defense under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-607. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that evidence of Bailey's flight, disposal of clothing and the weapon, failure to contact law enforcement, and a cellmate's testimony that the stabbing occurred during an attempted robbery provided sufficient basis for the jury to reject the justification claim. The court noted that credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting evidence are for the jury.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute among seven grandchildren over the division of a 40-acre parcel of real property in Perry County, along with cattle and farm equipment, that had belonged to their grandfather who died intestate in 1972. The circuit court entered a partition order directing that the land and cattle be divided equally among the parties, with a public sale if they could not agree within 21 days, appointed a commissioner to handle the sale, and found insufficient evidence regarding ownership of the farm equipment. Appellants and appellees both appealed from this order, raising issues about the distribution shares, credits for services rendered, and the equipment determination. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal without prejudice, holding that the partition order was not final and appealable because Arkansas precedent requires an order confirming the sale of the property before an appeal may be taken, and no Rule 54(b) certification was issued.

propertyprocedure

Adam Alexander sued Eastern Tank Services alleging unlawful termination in violation of the ADA, ACRA, and GINA, claiming his discharge was motivated by a perceived disability (Asperger’s Syndrome) or genetic information after he disclosed therapy and possible diagnosis to his employer. The employer moved for summary judgment, asserting the layoff was due to reduced business needs and lack of seniority, with the decision predating any disability disclosure. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the employer and denied Alexander’s requests for additional time to respond or complete discovery. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of further discovery and the summary judgment ruling on the GINA claim but reversed and remanded the ADA and ACRA claims for proper analysis of whether genuine issues of material fact remained regarding discriminatory motivation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Valencia v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the revocation of Erica Valencia's suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) after she pleaded guilty to theft of property and attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. The State petitioned to revoke based on her failure to complete ordered community service and make required restitution payments, and the trial court found her in violation, sentencing her to 72 months' imprisonment and 48 months' SIS to run consecutively. Valencia argued on appeal that the revocation was improper because the terms and conditions of her SIS were not properly documented or served. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the sentencing order included the conditions and that the evidence of noncompliance was sufficient, but modified the sentence to run concurrently to comply with Arkansas sentencing statutes. The decision was based on a preponderance of the evidence standard for revocations and statutory limits on consecutive sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hinson v. State, Mack Hinson was convicted by a jury of negligent homicide after a fatal three-vehicle accident and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test, arguing that his consent was not voluntary because he was not advised of his right to refuse and that the draw violated the Fourth Amendment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-208 mandates chemical testing in accidents involving loss of life and that Hinson had consented to the blood draw at the scene without the statute requiring advisement of refusal rights. The court found the officer's compliance with the statute and Hinson's consent sufficient to uphold the denial of the suppression motion.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nelson v. State, a seventeen-year-old defendant charged as an adult with four counts of raping his eleven-year-old cousin sought to transfer his case to juvenile court or obtain extended juvenile jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion after a hearing that included testimony on the defendant's prior juvenile delinquency record, probation history, intellectual disability, low academic functioning, and awareness of right and wrong. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court had properly weighed the statutory factors under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318 and that its decision was not clearly erroneous. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's planning and prior offenses, and the limited time available for rehabilitation before age twenty-one.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

In this case, buyer Mona Sloop and her trust sued sellers Sally and Russell Kiker and their trusts after the Kikers refused to return a $350,000 nonrefundable down payment on a $850,000 real-estate contract for a house and 134.5 acres. Sloop failed to pay the $500,000 balance by the August 31, 2013 deadline specified in the contract, which stated that the down payment would be forfeited and the contract null and void if closing did not occur by that date; the Kikers then sought to evict her and retain the funds, while Sloop counterclaimed for return of the payment on grounds including that the down payment was an unenforceable penalty, the contract violated the Statute of Frauds due to an inadequate property description and failure to name the sellers, and the deadline had been waived. The circuit court granted the Kikers summary judgment, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the simultaneously executed warranty deed cured any Statute of Frauds deficiencies by supplying the legal description and identifying the seller trusts, that the contract's August 31 deadline was clear and operative, and that Sloop's other arguments had not been ruled on below so could not be addressed on appeal.

propertyprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, employee Bill Price sustained a compensable right-shoulder injury in 2010 while working for the Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism and underwent multiple prior surgeries with ongoing pain and instability. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission awarded Price additional medical treatment including a recommended fifth surgery by Dr. Mark Bailey and temporary total-disability benefits from May 30, 2014, onward. The Department and Public Employee Claims Division appealed, arguing that the treatment was not medically necessary, that Dr. Bailey was not the authorized physician, and that Price had reached the end of his healing period. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that substantial evidence showed the proposed surgery was causally related to the original injury, that the Commission properly credited Dr. Bailey's findings over contrary opinions, and that Price remained within the healing period and unable to earn wages.

labor & employment

In Wheatley v. Dixie Mall 2003, LLC, the landlord sued its tenant for unlawful detainer and a writ of possession, claiming the tenant violated the commercial lease's permitted-use provision by offering strength-and-conditioning classes, fitness classes, and exercise machines at its sports academy, in conflict with another tenant's lease rights. The trial court granted the writ of possession and awarded the landlord costs and attorney fees. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the landlord had properly delivered the required violation and termination notices under the lease terms and that evidence of the tenant's leasehold improvements was irrelevant to determining the right to possession.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Arkansas Department of Human Services petitioning to terminate Melody Hunter's parental rights to her infant son R.H. after the child tested positive for THC at birth and was later removed following Hunter's arrest for criminal activity and her positive drug test. The Izard County Circuit Court adjudicated R.H. dependent-neglected based on inadequate supervision due to Hunter's drug use and criminal activity, set reunification as the goal, and later changed it to termination after finding Hunter had not complied with the case plan by continuing drug use, failing to visit the child, and remaining out of contact. The court terminated Hunter's rights on three statutory grounds, including the child's twelve months out of the home without remedying conditions despite DHS efforts, willful failure to maintain contact, and subsequent factors showing incapacity to rehabilitate, while also finding termination in the child's best interest due to adoptability and risk of harm. On appeal, Hunter's counsel filed a no-merit brief, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order after reviewing the record and finding no meritorious issues regarding the grounds or best-interest determination.

family law

The case involved an appeal by the Bank of Fayetteville from a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review granting unemployment benefits to former employee Fred Tanner, after finding he was discharged for reasons other than misconduct. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The petition for appeal had been signed by the bank's executive vice president, who was not a licensed attorney. Under established precedent, corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys in court proceedings, and filings by non-attorneys are considered nullities that do not invoke the court's jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Pelts v. Pelts, a divorce action between Gregory and Shelly Pelts, the parties disputed the division of Gregory's military retirement benefits, which included both vested reserve-plan benefits and nonvested active-duty benefits accrued in part during the marriage. The Lonoke County Circuit Court treated the nonvested benefits as marital property subject to equitable division and ordered Gregory to elect and pay for survivor benefits for Shelly on his plan. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the treatment and division of the benefits in part, reasoning that retirement benefits earned during the marriage qualify as divisible marital property regardless of vesting status under Arkansas law, but remanded for clarification on the scope and implementation of the survivor-benefits order.

family lawproperty

Michael Boyd was convicted by a jury in Pulaski County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery and theft of property, receiving consecutive sentences of 360 and 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motions for directed verdict, to suppress his statements, and to suppress a photo identification. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of those claims. Instead, the court ordered Boyd to file a supplemental abstract and addendum because his substituted brief remained deficient: it omitted the signature page of a suppression order, failed to abstract oral arguments and a trial ruling on a suppression motion, and did not follow formatting rules for abstracting a video interview. The order rested on Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5), which requires an impartial condensation of all material transcript portions essential to understanding and deciding the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, parents Jon Christopher Bean and Jennifer Bean appealed from a Benton County Circuit Court permanency-planning order in a dependency-neglect proceeding involving their three children, after the Arkansas Department of Human Services had removed the children due to environmental neglect and related issues; the order changed the case goal to adoption with a concurrent goal of reunification and denied the parents' request for a Rule 54(b) certificate to allow immediate appeal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice. The court reasoned that under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Rule 6-9, permanency-planning orders in dependency-neglect cases are appealable only if the circuit court issues a compliant certificate finding no just reason for delay, and the denial of such a certificate does not constitute a final or otherwise appealable order that ends the litigation or a separable part of it. The court further held that no exception to the finality rule applied, as the denial merely prevented an interlocutory appeal and did not resolve the merits of the case.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute among partners in five limited liability partnerships (LLPs) formed by three married couples, following the divorce of one couple. Thresa Kay Shamburger appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her breach of contract claim and ordering specific performance of an offer to purchase her interest under the general buy-sell provision for $200,000, along with attorney fees. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the specific death-or-divorce provision in the buy-sell agreements was mandatory and applied to determine the purchase price upon divorce rather than the general provision. The court reasoned that the use of mandatory language like "shall" in the specific provision required its application, and the provisions could be reconciled without neutralizing the general one.

business & regulatoryfamily lawprocedure

In Chantharath v. State, the appellant was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine based on a controlled buy involving a confidential informant, Robin Delgado, who testified at trial after admitting she assisted police to address her own misdemeanor fines and was on felony probation. Chantharath appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion and violated his confrontation rights by barring cross-examination about a pending petition to revoke Delgado's probation. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Delgado had already admitted her probation status and motives for cooperating, that no evidence linked her pending matters to any expectation of leniency in exchange for testimony, and that further inquiry was of marginal relevance and potentially prejudicial under the rules of evidence and Confrontation Clause precedents like Davis v. Alaska and Delaware v. Van Arsdall.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Devin Kirkland from the revocation of his probation after pleading guilty to misdemeanor theft of property. The State petitioned to revoke based on multiple violations, including failure to report to his probation officer as directed and admitted use of marijuana on multiple occasions, supported by testimony from the probation officer and signed admission forms. The circuit court found the violations proven, revoked probation, and sentenced Kirkland to 273 days in jail plus payment of outstanding fees. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, finding sufficient evidence of the violations and no merit to the appellant's pro se arguments regarding alleged false testimony or ineffective assistance of counsel, while granting counsel's motion to withdraw under no-merit procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

In Fowler v. Hendrix, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal by Kimberly Fowler from a circuit court order finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support and entering judgment for the arrearage owed to her ex-husband Kenneth Hendrix. The parties' 2006 divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement providing for joint custody with no initial child support obligation, but a 2010 agreed order required Fowler to pay $500 monthly support for their daughter until she reached 18 or graduated high school. After Hendrix petitioned for contempt in 2015 due to nonpayment, Fowler argued that support was not owed after her visitation ended in 2010 and that equitable estoppel barred collection due to Hendrix's delay and conduct regarding visitation. The court affirmed the contempt finding and judgment, holding that the 2010 order unambiguously required ongoing support payments independent of visitation and that Fowler failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Kenneth Cole Sizemore, who was charged with manslaughter but convicted by a Washington County jury of misdemeanor negligent homicide after his vehicle rolled over at high speed, ejecting and killing passenger Zachary Tyler Hagan. Sizemore appealed the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding substantial evidence that the defendant drove erratically at up to 75 mph without braking on clear roads, with difluoroethane (an inhalant from air duster canisters purchased minutes earlier) in his blood. The court remanded solely for correction of the sentencing order, which had incorrectly cited the felony negligent homicide statute instead of the misdemeanor provision under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-105(b).

criminal law

The case involved American Express Bank suing David Davenport and his business to recover $13,901.46 in credit-card debt, with Davenport filing counterclaims for conversion, outrage, defamation, and other claims plus a third-party complaint against another individual. The circuit court dismissed the bank's lawsuit, entered judgment for the bank on the counterclaims, and later awarded Davenport $30,597.50 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party. AmEx appealed the fee award, contending the court abused its discretion in finding Davenport the prevailing party. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice, ruling that the August 2014 order was not final and appealable because no written order disposed of the third-party complaint, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

procedure