 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Manuel Bail Bonds v. State, CA06-300,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The failure to fingerprint a suspect charged with a serious drug offense under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-1006(a) did not result in a reversal of a bond forfeiture because this was not an appropriate remedy. The surety had the primary responsibility of securing the appearance.
|
|||||
| McBride v. State, CACR03-1320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order revoking defendant's probation on grounds that there was evidence that he had been charged with aggravated robbery and that he had failed to report or pay fees was upheld where he conceded in his own testimony that he had willfully violated the conditions of his probation; any argument based on merits of revocation would be wholly frivolous.
|
|||||
| McDonald v. State, CACR 05-923,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's counsel was directed to file a substituted brief that contained an abstract and discussion of all of the objections decided adversely to defendant contained in the record where counsel omitted several of the trial court's adverse rulings in his Anders brief, contrary to the requirements of Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j)(1).
|
|||||
| Merriweather v. State, CACR05-507,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of the trial court's judgments revoking his suspended sentences for robbery and possession of drug paraphernalia and cocaine was not frivolous for purposes of Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j). An argument regarding the legality of the two revocation proceedings and the resulting sentences did not lack merit.
|
|||||
| Moon Distribs. v. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. ABC Div., No. CA06-1308,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, CACR 06-134,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to sustain a rape conviction where the victim testified that appellant had sex with her two to three times per week while she was ages 11 to 13, the victim had physical findings consistent with a female who had engaged in sexual intercourse, and allowing a potentially irrelevant statement was harmless error.
|
|||||
| Pedraza v. State, CACR06-293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The affidavit for a search warrant provided that the narcotics unit had worked with a confidential informant who had seen drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine in defendant's residence within the past 24 hours. The affidavit set forth sufficient facts bearing on the informant's reliability, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.1(b).
|
|||||
| Powell v. State, CACR06-370,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An Arkansas trial court had jurisdiction over defendant, a Georgia resident, under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-104(a)(1) (2005) where defendant caused the victim, an Arkansas resident, to access her computer by virtue of his email correspondence for the purpose of obtaining money with a false or fraudulent intent, representation, or promise.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, CACR05-1404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
