Robin F. Wynne

The case involved Affordable Bail Bonds appealing a circuit court order forfeiting its $100,000 appearance bond after defendant Eloy Alvarez failed to appear for his May 2013 trial on drug charges. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the forfeiture, holding that it was properly based on the May failure to appear, for which the surety received notice the next day in compliance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-84-207. The court distinguished an earlier October 2012 failure to appear that had been nolle prossed, noting that Alvarez was not treated as a fugitive after that event and the bond remained in effect for the later trial date. It also rejected the argument that service of the summons was invalid because it was accepted by an employee rather than an officer or registered agent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Person v. State, Emmanuel Person appealed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's revocation of his probation, which had been imposed following a 2009 guilty plea to theft by receiving and later extended. The State petitioned for revocation based on his failure to report monthly to his probation officer after March 2012. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation. The court reasoned that the appellant's claim regarding lack of proof that he received written probation conditions was not raised below and could not be considered for the first time on appeal, while other evidence showed he was aware of the reporting requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Michael Woole's appeal from his convictions for two counts of aggravated cruelty to a dog, cat, or horse in Faulkner County Circuit Court. Woole challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss and motion to suppress photographs taken during an alleged illegal search. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the appeal due to an incomplete record, specifically the absence of Woole's post-trial brief on the suppression motion, which is needed to understand the arguments presented to the trial court. The court remanded the case to supplement the record with the missing brief and ordered rebriefing by the parties.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved J.J., a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for second-degree battery and placed on probation that included a requirement to complete residential treatment. After allegations of repeated violations at the treatment facility, including defiance, aggression toward staff and patients, and theft, the Craighead County Circuit Court revoked his probation and committed him to the Division of Youth Services. J.J. appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because his behavior resulted from a change in medication for his mental health conditions. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, concluding that the State had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that J.J. violated the terms of probation and that there was no evidence connecting the medication change to his conduct.

criminal lawfamily law

In Malvin v. State, Ashley Malvin was convicted after a bench trial of computer exploitation of a child, distributing matter depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child, and sexual indecency with a child based on evidence that he sent photographs of his penis to a 14-year-old member of his church congregation. Malvin appealed only the sexual indecency conviction, contending that the state failed to prove he exposed his penis because he sent images rather than exposing himself in person. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that sending the photographs satisfied the statutory requirement of exposing his sex organs to a minor while in a position of trust and authority, as the statute's plain meaning encompasses laying open to view by any means, and the method of exposure did not negate the offense.

criminal law

In Malone v. State, Clifford Malone was convicted of rape under Arkansas law after being charged with engaging in sexual activity with a minor, A.H., while acting as her guardian. The case centered on whether Malone met the statutory definition of guardian, which includes anyone placed in an apparent position of power or authority over a minor due to a living arrangement. At trial, evidence showed that Malone lived with A.H.'s mother, supervised A.H. during her weekend visits when the mother was at work, and that A.H. followed his instructions on the day of the offense. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude Malone was in such a position of apparent authority, even without proof that he was a primary caretaker or disciplinarian. The court rejected arguments that sporadic visitation or lack of formal custody arrangements precluded the guardian element.

criminal lawfamily law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Freddie Dean Lindsey, a paramedic at Johnson County Regional Medical Center, who suffered a back injury in 2007 while lifting a patient. After multiple surgeries and reaching maximum medical improvement with permanent impairment ratings, Lindsey sought additional medical benefits, temporary-total disability benefits, and wage-loss disability benefits from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. The Commission awarded these benefits, finding that Lindsey's condition had worsened after initially declining a light-duty position and considering factors like his age, education, work history, and physical limitations. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the wage-loss claim was not barred by statute and that the award was supported by substantial evidence.

labor & employment

The case involved Marcus Rimmer's appeal of the Crittenden County Circuit Court's revocation of his probation after he pled guilty in 2011 to possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The State petitioned to revoke based on multiple alleged violations, including failure to report to probation as directed, and following a hearing the trial court revoked probation solely on the reporting violation and imposed a sentence of thirty-six months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Rimmer inexcusably violated a probation condition. The court reasoned that Rimmer had not explored all transportation options, failed to respond to his probation officer's contact attempts, and did not adequately explain his lack of employment or ongoing reporting failures, distinguishing the facts from a prior case where revocation was reversed. The decision applied the standard that only one proven violation suffices for revocation and deferred to the trial court's credibility assessments.

criminal law

This case is an appeal from the Jefferson County Circuit Court in a domestic relations matter between Ollye Robinson and Kimberly Jones Miller. The Arkansas Court of Appeals had previously ordered rebriefing because the appellant's abstract and addendum were deficient and omitted key information needed to understand the case, such as certain testimony and motions. After the opportunity to cure those issues, the appellant made only minimal changes and still failed to include all required material from the transcript and record, including appellee's testimony at a hearing and a response to a motion to intervene. The court therefore affirmed the circuit court's order due to noncompliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 on the contents of appellate briefs and addenda.

procedurefamily law

Joel Buckley was convicted in Washington County Circuit Court of two counts of failure to appear and one count of driving while intoxicated (fourth offense), receiving consecutive sentences totaling 192 months. He appealed, arguing error in admitting testimony from his former attorney about a phone call notifying him of a September 2012 trial date and in allowing evidence of a portable breath test result. The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the attorney-client privilege under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 502 barred the former attorney's testimony regarding the court-date notification, as it was a confidential communication made to facilitate legal services, leading to reversal and remand of the September 2012 failure-to-appear conviction and sentence; the remaining convictions were affirmed. The court applied precedent from Byrd v. State and found no applicable exception to the privilege on the facts presented.

criminal lawprocedure

Robert Boyd appealed a decision by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission that denied his claim for benefits based on illnesses he attributed to mold exposure at his workplace with Madison County. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial in a memorandum opinion. The court held that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, as the standard of review requires affirmance when the decision shows a substantial basis for denying relief and reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. The court noted that it views evidence favorably to the Commission’s decision and defers to its credibility determinations.

labor & employment

This case involved an appeal by Amber and Christian Ward from a Crittenden County Circuit Court order adjudicating their children dependent-neglected after their three-month-old son T.W. suffered a skull fracture. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the finding, concluding that the evidence met the statutory requirements for dependency-neglect based on physical abuse by an unknown offender and inadequate supervision. The court reasoned that medical expert testimony showed the parents' explanations for the injury were inconsistent with its severity, the parents could not provide any other account, and the injury necessarily occurred while the child was in their custody or entrusted to others, satisfying the definitions under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303.

family law

This case involved Jennie Warren's appeal of a circuit court order terminating her parental rights to three children after the Arkansas Department of Human Services removed them following a hotline report of abuse, including a non-accidental brain injury to one infant, and adjudicated them dependent-neglected due to inadequate supervision and unstable living conditions. The court affirmed the termination, holding that the evidence supported statutory grounds including failure to remedy conditions, lack of stable housing or income, noncompliance with the case plan, and continued association with an alleged abuser, as well as a finding that termination was in the children's best interest based on their adoptability and potential harm. The reasoning emphasized the mother's insufficient progress over more than a year of services and her inability to demonstrate safe parenting, while rejecting unpreserved claims about reasonable efforts by the agency.

family law

The case involved Danielle and Dustin Tuck appealing the Benton County Circuit Court's order terminating their parental rights to their three minor children after the Arkansas Department of Human Services took custody following an incident of Danielle driving while intoxicated with one child in the vehicle. The circuit court found multiple statutory grounds for termination proved by clear and convincing evidence, including the parents' substance abuse issues, incarceration, failure to make progress on the case plan, and Dustin's lengthy prison sentence, and determined that termination served the children's best interests given their adoptability. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the grounds and best-interest findings while deeming certain procedural and evidentiary arguments unpreserved for review.

family law

Matthew Williams was convicted of first-degree forgery after representing himself at trial, where a witness mentioned his prior incarceration during cross-examination. He appealed the denial of his mistrial motion based on that testimony. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the motion was not made at the first opportunity and was therefore not preserved for review. The court remanded the case to correct the sentencing order, which did not reflect Williams's habitual-offender status and imposed an illegal 480-month sentence exceeding the twenty-year maximum for a Class B felony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over custody of a four-year-old child following the parents' divorce in Missouri. The father petitioned in Arkansas circuit court to change primary custody from the mother, alleging repeated denial of visitation and telephone access along with efforts to alienate the child. After a hearing that included psychological evaluations, an attorney ad litem report, and witness testimony, the trial court found a material change in circumstances and that modifying custody served the child's best interest, ordering an immediate transfer to the father along with child support. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in its findings on changed circumstances or best interest, citing deference to the lower court's credibility determinations regarding the mother's conduct and the evidence of visitation interference.

family law

This case involved Gerald Stockstill's appeal of a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son D.S.2, who had been removed from the mother's custody along with siblings in 2012 due to inadequate supervision and environmental neglect. After Stockstill was identified as the father through paternity testing, the court found he had completed parenting classes and complied with some drug screening but lacked stable housing, sufficient income, and had not addressed anger issues, leading to termination of his rights on the "subsequent factors" statutory ground with a finding that the child was adoptable. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the circuit court did not clearly err in determining the child was adoptable, that potential harm existed if returned to the father's custody, or in finding the statutory ground had been proved by clear and convincing evidence.

family law

The case involved Michael Davis appealing the revocation of his probation after he pleaded guilty to second-degree forgery and was sentenced to three years of probation with conditions including reporting to a probation officer and paying fines and fees. The State petitioned to revoke probation citing multiple violations, and at the hearing, testimony showed Davis had failed to report for extended periods, made no payments, and had other compliance issues; Davis admitted some failures but offered explanations like drug use and personal circumstances. The circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Davis violated the reporting requirement and sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, Davis's counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders v. California and Arkansas appellate rules seeking to withdraw, and after review, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and granted the motion to withdraw, concluding there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The Clarks appealed a summary judgment ruling that their auto insurer, Southern Farm Bureau, owed no underinsured motorist coverage after the Clarks settled with the at-fault driver without providing prior notice as required by the policy. The trial court also granted judgment to the insurer on the Clarks' affirmative defenses and counterclaims for bad faith and vexatious refusal, but did not address their negligence claim. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, because the order was not final under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as it failed to adjudicate all claims in the multicount pleading. The court also denied the insurer's pending motions to dismiss, some as moot and others without prejudice.

proceduretorts & liability

Gary Carter appealed from the Crittenden County Circuit Court's revocation of his probation, which had been imposed after his 2010 guilty plea to possession of cocaine. The State had alleged violations including failure to make required monthly payments toward fines and costs as well as new criminal conduct in Illinois involving methamphetamine, for which Carter had been sentenced to prison. At the revocation hearing, evidence showed both the payment failures and the Illinois conviction; the circuit court found the violations by a preponderance of the evidence and imposed a ten-year suspended sentence with conditions including 180 days in a community correction facility. Carter's appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) asserting that the appeal was wholly without merit, and Carter filed no pro se points. After independent review of the record, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

criminal law