 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Price v. State, No. CR05-792,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because co-defendant was not named as an accomplice, accomplice-corroboration principles did not apply; evidence was sufficient to support conviction for first-degree murder under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102. Co-defendant's prior conviction was properly excluded under Ark. R. Evid. 609. Prosecutor's closing argument was proper.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, No. CR 03-1451,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed denial of appellant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 where he failed to provide adequate abstract of trial testimony, and no abstract of postconviction relief hearing whatsoever. He made little, if any, effort to present the impartial condensation required by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(5).
|
|||||
| Steele v. State, No. CR 05-237,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court could not release defendant when he was not in custody within the court's jurisdiction and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resolve warrants issued outside of the district, the order denying postconviction relief was affirmed and counsel was allowed to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j)(1).
|
|||||
| Venis v. State, No. CR 05-151,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the issue of the postconviction petitioner's competency was not raised in his motion for new trial, and the trial court did not address whether or not a hearing was appropriate, the case was remanded for the trial court to consider the issue and determine the appropriate disposition, including whether a hearing would be appropriate.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, No. CR 05-929,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's lack of personal knowledge, lack of legal representation, and lack of access to a law library did not constitute good cause for granting his motion for belated appeal.
|
|||||
| Webb v. State, No. CR04-920,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied defendant's oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree murder and battery because the motion was made three days after the judgment and commitment orders were entered; hence, it was untimely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 26.1. The unsworn motion also did not meet the requirements for postconviction relief under Rule 37.
|
|||||
| Whitfield v. State, No. CR 05-1101,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the inmate's motion for a writ of habeas corpus was proper where the grounds raised by the inmate in the trial court did not fall within the purview of Act 1780 of 2001, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-207. Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should not have been addressed to the trial court.
|
|||||
| Whitfield v. White, No. 05-222,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate admitted that the warden was not the warden at the time of the alleged constitutional violations and segregation to punitive isolation was not the type of deprivation that constituted a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the trial court properly dismissed inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e civil rights lawsuit with prejudice.
|
|||||
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. |
