 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Norris, No. 06-1452,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of writ of habeas corpus was affirmed because the inmate failed to show that the commitment was invalid on its face, when the inmate was well informed as to the nature of the charges and the range of punishment those charges carried pursuant to his negotiated guilty pleas.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. CR 07-309,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate was not incarcerated in the jurisdiction where he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, and, at the time the petition was filed, the inmate did not invoke 2001 Ark. Acts 1780, the circuit court was unable to provide the requested relief, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Buckley v. State, No. CR 06-172,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on an original appeal and during resentencing failed because it could not be said that the trial court clearly erred in finding that counsel's failure to object to evidence was trial strategy and because there was no prejudice as defendant's sentence was within the statutory range.
|
|||||
| Bunch v. State, No. CR 06-1384,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief because while the petition for postconviction relief was notarized, it did not contain an affidavit or statement substantially in the form of the affidavit required by Rule 37.1(c); hence, the trial court could not consider the issues in the petition.
|
|||||
| Bunn v. Norris, No. 06-1420,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate was no longer in the jurisdiction where he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, and, at the time the petition was filed, the inmate did not invoke 2001 Ark. Acts 1780, the circuit court was unable to provide the requested relief, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Conlee v. Conlee, No. 06-586,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce proceedings, substantial evidence supported a trial court's order holding the husband in criminal contempt because the husband had repeatedly and consistently refused to abide by the trial court's orders, both before and after the divorce decree was entered.
|
|||||
| Flowers v. State, No. CR 07-319,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court denied counsel's request to withdraw as counsel for appellant because Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(a) indicated that counsel was eligible, as a part-time public defender, to receive compensation for his appellate work, and counsel did not show adequate cause to support his request, as required under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 16(a).
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, No. CR 06-686,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was not wrongly allowed to amend information after trial was underway because amendment of original kidnapping charge based on Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-102(a)(4) to include allegations under § 5-11-102(a)(3), (6) did not change nature of charge, but amended manner in which offense took place; appellant was not unfairly surprised by amendment.
|
|||||
| In re Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Ark., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 24, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
