Arkansas, May, 2007, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - May 17, 2007

Strong v. State, No. CR06-134 6, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Where an attorney sought to withdraw from a criminal appeal on the grounds of a conflict of interest based on allegations that defendant had lodged a complaint against him with the Committee on Professional Conduct but the attorney did not attach the complaint to his motion, the court denied the motion under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 16.

Search Cases for Free

Thomas v. State, No. CR 06-439, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: In a capital murder case, the denial of a continuance, Ark. R. Crim. P. 27.3, did not prejudice defendant because the trial date had been established eight months in advance, there was no objection by defendant concerning his counsel's other obligations, and defendant did not show that he was not adequately represented.

Search Cases for Free

Wilson v. State, No. CR 07-102, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Because it appeared that the inmate's earlier petition for post-conviction relief was not verified as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d), dismissal of the petition was appropriate. However, trial court should have also dismissed later, verified petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was not timely filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).

Search Cases for Free

Young v. State, No. CR 06-1263, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Court denied defendant's pro se motion for copies of all of the materials in her case file because defendant had accepted an appointment of counsel and was, therefore, not entitled to proceed pro se; further, as her counsel had access to the file, defendant did not show a compelling need for the documents in question.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal