 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beverly v. State, No. CR 05-150,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner sought postconviction relief, pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, following his drug related convictions. Petitioner failed to overcome strong presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance because of failure to request jury admonishment, as this was considered a trial strategy. Also, petitioner's allegations were unsupported.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, No. CR04-164,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not be retried on the same charge, regardless of whether his acquittal was a result of the trial judge's legal error and despite the legal error, because the acquittal was based on matters of guilt or innocence; double jeopardy principles prevented a retrial.
|
|||||
| Coulter v. State, No. CR90-126,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court rejected an inmate's motion to recall the mandate in his appeal and reopen his case as the inmate never raised a claim of mental retardation until his federal habeas corpus petition, which was filed 10 years after his petition for post-conviction relief and did not meet the presumption of retardation in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-618(2).
|
|||||
| Health Facilities Mgmt. Corp. v. Hughes, No. 05-90,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment against management company was reversed because it was not a licensee subject to suit for violation of the resident's rights under the Arkansas Long Term Care Resident's Rights Statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 20-10-1209(a)(1); but judgment against the facility was upheld where evidence showed the resident suffered from multiple lapses in care.
|
|||||
| Horvath v. State, No. CR06-72 and CR06-79,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Martin v. Patterson, No. 06-42,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Morris v. State, No. CR 05-410,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder, he sought postconviction relief, pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Trial court properly denied petition because petitioner failed to show trial counsel was ineffective under Sixth Amendment and petition failed to state facts; rather, it made only conclusory allegations.
|
|||||
| Rankin v. State, No. CR 04-1188,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a post-conviction proceeding under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, appellant convicted of three counts of capital murder was not entitled to relief from his death sentence. Counsel did not render deficient performance at the penalty phase in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Appellant's challenge to his death sentence was not preserved for review.
|
|||||
| Rector v. State, No. CR 05-311,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant entered a guilty plea, there was no issue of identity, and no evidentiary hearing was required on his petition for writ of habeas corpus under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201; additionally, the appellate court would not consider an argument that presented neither citation to authority nor convincing argument.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
