Latest 5 Cases: Barnett v. State (Criminal Law), Mason v. Kelley (Criminal Law), Ray v. Kelley (Criminal Law)

Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

Barnett v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 181

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's "motion for credit for time spent in custody," holding that the circuit court's findings were not clearly erroneous. In his motion, Appellant alleged that he was entitled to 312 days of jail-time credit and that the circuit court should enter a new sentencing order nunc pro tunc that reflected the correct amount of jail-time credit. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's denial of Appellant's motion was not clearly erroneous because Appellant failed to demonstrate a clerical error subject to correction.

Mason v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 182

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no ground on which the writ could issue. Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and second-degree battery and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 660 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later petitioned for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the trial court misapplied Arkansas's habitual-offender statutes. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issues Appellant raised in his petition for the writ should have been raised at trial, on direct appeal, or in a petition for postconviction relief.

Ray v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 184

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from an order denying his pro se petition for permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to consider the petition. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to rape and other offenses. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Chicot County Circuit Court, the court where he was incarcerated, setting out two grounds for coram nobis relief. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that jurisdiction lay in the trial court where Appellant was convicted, which in this case was the Ashley County Circuit Court. Therefore, the Chicot County Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to address Appellant's coram nobis petition.

Walker v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 183

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for declaratory judgment, holding that Appellant could not use a declaratory-judgment action to collaterally attack his criminal conviction. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle. The court of appeals affirmed. Years later, Appellant filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that he was denied due process in his criminal trial when the court admitted the prior testimony of an unavailable witness and that this admission violated the Confrontation Clause. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a declaratory judgment action provided no relief on these grounds.

Davis v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC

Citation: 2020 Ark. 180

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

In a certified question of law regarding the requirement for creditors to comply strictly with the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act the Supreme Court held that Ark. Code Ann. 18-50-104(b)(4) requires disclosure of the specific default under the terms of the mortgage agreement. The Court by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas certified the question of law to the Supreme Court, asking whether mere acknowledgment that a default has occurred is sufficient for the trustee's Notice of Default and Intention to Sell or whether section 18-5-104(b)(4) requires the trustee's notice of default to set forth the default for which foreclosure is made. The Supreme Court answered that the statute requires that the notice must state the specific default that occurred.