 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brantley v. State, No. CR 05-787,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The presumption of prejudice standard did not apply in an ineffective assistance of counsel case because there was no complete denial of counsel where a public defender investigated a theft case in the week prior to an inmate's decision to accept a guilty plea; therefore, a motion for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was denied.
|
|||||
| Bunch v. State, No. CACR 05-726,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Arkansas held petitioner stated no reason to revisit its previous decision in which it denied his request for transcript in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief as, petitioner had not shown how transcript was necessary or that his points could not have been properly raised in trial court without access to it.
|
|||||
| Edmond v. State, No. CR 01-1050,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a request for a writ of error coram nobis, petitioner seemed to assert that certain issues were never reviewed because his request for relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was denied without reaching the merits. Writ was denied because claims petitioner would raise were not cognizable in this type of proceeding.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, No. CR 06-192,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In petitioner's request to file a belated appeal, the request was denied because petitioner failed to show good cause, as required by Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2; petitioner's retained counsel was relieved, he had no duty to represent petitioner on appeal, and an appeal was not proper way to proceed when alleging ineffective assistance.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, No. CR 05-751,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1) (2006) because the evidence showed that two murders were committed during a robbery; defendant made inculpatory statements regarding the robbery, the victims had a large amount of cash, and defendant made calls to their phone on the day of the shooting.
|
|||||
| Jayel Corp. v. Cochran, No. 05-1005,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to an attorney and her law firm in an abuse of process case arising from a land dispute because the attorney-client relationship satisfied the privity requirement under the doctrine of res judicata.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. CR 06-297,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In his request for postconviction relief, motion for rule on the clerk was denied because petitioner failed to timely tender the record, as required by Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(a), and he failed to show good cause for failing to timely tender the record.
|
|||||
| Ratchford v. State, No. CR 05-317,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of petition for postconviction relief, appellate court determined that it could not address merits of petitioner's request because petitioner's signature was not authentic, and petition was not properly verified as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d); petitioner had authorized his attorney to sign petitioner's name for petitioner.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. State, No. CR05-879,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 20, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The use of the word "may" in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-702 (2006) did not mean that a jury had the discretion as to whether to impose an enhanced sentence where a crime of domestic violence was committed in the presence of a child; therefore, where no sentence was imposed by the jury, a trial court did not err by imposing one.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
