JENKINS v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Citation: 2023 Ark. 184

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court of Arkansas heard an appeal from Michael Jenkins, who was challenging the denial of his pro se petition for a writ of "mandamus/prohibition" by the Jefferson County Circuit Court. Jenkins, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in 2018 and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment, claimed that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and its record keeper had incorrectly deemed him ineligible for parole. He argued that the application of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b), which disqualifies for parole a sex offender previously convicted of a violent felony, was an ex post facto violation as it was based on his 1981 convictions for armed robbery and home invasion in Illinois - offenses that occurred before the enactment of the cited statute.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that there was no ex post facto violation in the ADC’s application of the statute to Jenkins's parole eligibility. The court pointed out that the statute was enacted in 2001 and eliminates parole eligibility for persons who committed a felony sex offense after August 13, 2001, and had been previously convicted of a violent felony offense or any felony sex offense. Jenkins was convicted of a sexual assault committed in 2016, and his previous violent offenses committed in Illinois before the act's enactment were valid grounds for the application of section 16-93-609(b)(2). Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's denial of Jenkins's petition for a writ and also denied his motion for the appointment of counsel.

HARMON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Citation: 2023 Ark. 179

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Rodney Dale Harmon, who was convicted of multiple drug-related felonies and sentenced to 40 years in prison, appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. The appeal was mainly based on the presence of an HBO documentary film crew while a search warrant was executed at his home, and he argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The court ruled that claims related to the presence of the film crew during the search could not be used to void the judgment, as even constitutional violations are not in themselves enough to trigger application of Rule 37. The court further noted that issues of evidence, including those possibly obtained by illegal search or seizure, are not of such a fundamental nature as to void the judgment.

Harmon also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Fourth Amendment violation as an independent ground to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. The court disagreed, stating that even though the violation was established law, the remedy was not, and that counsel was not deficient for failing to raise a novel argument.

Thus, the court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Harmon's petition for postconviction relief.

STACY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Citation: 2023 Ark. 176

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Arkansas, the appellant, Cordale Stacy, was convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on each count, along with a consecutive fifteen years’ imprisonment for a firearm enhancement. The appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motions to dismiss the capital-murder charges due to an alleged overlap of capital, first-degree, and second-degree murder statutes.

The case arose from a shooting incident in a Forrest City apartment where three individuals, an adult and two children, were found deceased. Witnesses identified Stacy fleeing the scene and further investigations led to his arrest. Stacy was charged with three counts of capital murder, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and a felony-with-a-firearm enhancement.

Stacy filed two motions to quash the felony information, arguing that the capital murder statute overlapped with the first-degree murder statute for the adult victim, and overlapped with the first-degree and second-degree murder statutes for the minor victims. He contended that this overlap exposed him to an impermissible uncertainty in the offenses, which should have led to their dismissal. The circuit court denied both motions.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that there was no constitutional infirmity in the overlap of these statutes. The Court noted that each offense set forth different elements to be proved by the State, and thus, any alleged overlap presented no constitutional issues. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the discretion of the prosecutor to choose between overlapping offenses did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses. Therefore, the Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Stacy's motions to quash the felony information and dismiss the charges. As a result, Stacy's conviction and sentence were upheld.

GOEHLER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Citation: 2023 Ark. 186

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Family Law

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Jacoby Goehler was convicted by a jury for the first-degree murder of Davidlee Stansbury and sentenced to life in prison plus fifteen years. Goehler appealed his conviction on several grounds including the admission of incriminating statements made in police custody without his attorney present, denial of his motion to change venue, admission of testimony from his wife, and admission of a photograph of the victim. He also disputed the court's refusal to provide jury instructions on lesser-included offenses of manslaughter and second-degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's decision on each point. The Court stated that Goehler failed to preserve his argument about his incriminating statements for appeal. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a change of venue because the court was able to select an impartial jury. It also found that the spousal privilege did not apply to the testimony of Goehler's wife because the facts she testified about were not privileged. The Court ruled that the admission of the photograph of the victim was not an abuse of discretion because it aided the jury in understanding the consequence of Goehler's actions. Lastly, the Court found no error in the trial court's refusal to provide jury instructions on manslaughter and second-degree murder because there was no rational basis for acquitting Goehler of first-degree murder and instead convicting him of the lesser offenses.

SIMS v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Citation: 2023 Ark. 187

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus petitions filed by Charles Sims, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Sims had sought a declaration that he was eligible for parole, contrary to the determination made by ADC. The court affirmed the circuit court's finding that Sims was ineligible for parole according to the Arkansas Code.

Sims had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 1995 and was paroled in 2007. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to first-degree battery and kidnapping, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 180 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with his remaining sentence for first-degree murder. ADC records applied section 16-93-609 to Sims’s sentence for battery and kidnapping, determining him ineligible for parole.

The court held that Sims had failed to establish a justiciable controversy or that he had a legal interest in the controversy, two prerequisites for declaratory relief. The court also noted that parole eligibility determinations fall within the purview of ADC, not the judiciary. The court further held that the absence of a reference to the parole-eligibility statute in the judgment did not constitute a requirement for parole eligibility.

The court also dismissed Sims's argument that section 5-4-501(d)(2) was inapplicable to him, holding that the court has applied the relevant sections when the prior conviction consisted of only one offense. The court concluded that Sims had not established a right to parole eligibility, and therefore had no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court affirmed the circuit court's decisions, ruling it did not clearly err or abuse its discretion when it denied and dismissed Sims's petitions for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus.

DRIVER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Citation: 2023 Ark. 181

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Arkansas, the appellant, Michael Driver, contested his convictions for rape and second-degree sexual assault. Driver argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, that his statements to the police should not have been admitted as evidence, and that the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of non-charged conduct. The court affirmed Driver's convictions, determining that there was substantial evidence to support them.

In November 2019, Driver was accused of raping a 12-year-old relative. The victim reported the incident, and the police found two used condoms with Driver's DNA at the location of the alleged rape. In the course of the investigation, another minor female relative also reported inappropriate sexual contact with Driver. Driver was interviewed by the police multiple times, during which he initially denied the allegations, but later confessed to the crimes. He was eventually arrested, tried, and found guilty.

Driver's arguments on appeal were that there was not enough evidence to find him guilty, his statements to the police should not have been admitted because he had asked for legal counsel, and the court was wrong to admit evidence of non-charged conduct. However, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions, his statements to the police were properly admitted as he had validly waived his rights to counsel, and the testimony of additional victims was not unfairly prejudicial. Therefore, the court affirmed his convictions.

TRAMMEL v. DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Citation: 2023 Ark. 177

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arkansas was asked to consider an appeal by Maurice Trammel, who was challenging the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis in seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. Trammel had been sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment for various crimes and was designated as a habitual offender. He sought to challenge his habitual offender status, arguing that there was no proof offered by the State that demonstrated he had committed the necessary number of felonies to be classified as such. He further argued that his sentence should be declared illegal, which would effectively reduce his period of parole eligibility.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Trammel did not state a colorable cause of action and that his petition was effectively a collateral attack on his sentence, which should have been raised in timely postconviction petitions. The court noted that Trammel was charged as a habitual offender and pleaded guilty to all the charges, including his habitual-offender status. His challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his habitual offender status was not a jurisdictional issue and was therefore waived by his guilty plea. Moreover, the court observed that the Department of Correction had no authority to modify a sentence imposed by a circuit court.

Hence, the court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Trammel's in forma pauperis petition, finding no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's conclusion that Trammel had failed to state a justiciable controversy that would entitle him to declaratory relief.

WORKMAN, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Citation: 2023 Ark. 183

Opinion Date: December 7, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In the Supreme Court of Arkansas case, Jeffery Allen Workman was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated residential burglary, and second-degree battery, and sentenced to consecutive sentences of life in prison. The charges originated from an incident where Workman broke into a residence to retrieve a computer and in the process, shot and killed a man named David Basham. On appeal, Workman argued that the State failed to provide substantial evidence that he committed first-degree murder. However, the Supreme Court found that Workman failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal, as he did not renew his motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence as required by the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the court affirmed his convictions. Additionally, the court conducted a Rule 4-3(a) review due to Workman's life imprisonment sentence and found no reversible error.

Join Justia Webinars for an Introduction to the Law of Content Creation

Justia Team

Are you interested in new and developing areas of the law? Content creation is arguably one of the newest professions in our social media society. Lawyers, you’re invited to learn more about the applicable legal concerns in this new niche.

Read More