Misskelley v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 462
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 08-1481, CR 08-1493, CR 09-60
JESSIE LLOYD MISSKELLEY, JR.;
DAMIEN WAYNE ECHOLS; CHARLES
JASON BALDWIN,
APPELLANTS,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
Opinion Delivered October
1, 2009
REMANDED TO SETTLE THE
RECORD.
APPELLEE,
PER CURIAM
Appellants Damien Wayne Echols, Charles Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Lloyd Misskelley,
Jr., have each appealed orders denying their respective petitions for writ of habeas corpus and
motions for new trial under Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 16-112-201, et seq. Likewise, Appellants
have lodged their respective records with this court’s clerk. Although the record in Baldwin
v. State, Case No. CR 09-60, reflects that Baldwin Exhibit Nos. 1-71 and 75-77 were filed
under seal, we are unable to determine whether these exhibits were also filed under seal in
Echols v. State, Case No. CR 08-1493 and Misskelley v. State, Case No. CR 08-1481.
Likewise, the records in each case do not indicate whether any of the pleadings were filed
under seal. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. R. - Civil 6(e), we remand the above-captioned cases
to the trial court to settle the record concerning which portions of the respective records are
under seal.
WILLS, J., not participating.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 462
DANIELSON, J., dissents.
DANIELSON, J., dissenting. The majority’s decision to remand this matter to the circuit
court unnecessarily deviates from this court’s customary procedures and, therefore, I must
dissent. First, the majority is acting sua sponte as none of the parties to these cases, nor any
third party, has moved this court as to what portions, if any, of these records are currently
under seal. Furthermore, such an inquiry at this point is a simple one. Either the records, or
portions thereof, were filed under seal at the circuit court level, or they were not. If the
record does not indicate that certain exhibits or pleadings were filed under seal, then it seems
clear they were not and are public record. It is the duty of the parties involved in a case, not
this court, to ensure that certain documents are sealed if that is their intention. To this date,
no motion to seal has been filed in our court in any of these cases.
By remanding this matter to the circuit court to determine which portions of the
respective records are under seal, we are providing the circuit court with a second opportunity
to seal portions of those records. Again, that process vastly deviates from the typical
procedure of this court. After a case is filed with this court, our clerk is then to determine if
that record, or portions therein, were originally sealed by the circuit court. If so, the same
will be filed under seal here. The remainder is public record unless subsequently sealed by
this court pursuant to a motion. It is for these reasons that I respectfully dissent.
-2-
1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
