Richard L. Mays

This case is the second appeal of James Leggins' convictions on two counts of aggravated robbery, for which he received consecutive life sentences as an habitual offender. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the state cured an evidentiary deficiency from the first trial by introducing the defendant's indigency affidavit signed with a similar name, which together with the prior conviction record provided substantial evidence of identity under the idem sonans doctrine. The court also rejected the claim that Leggins was denied his choice of counsel, finding the request for new counsel was made only two weeks before trial without good cause or an identified replacement attorney, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in denying a continuance to avoid disrupting the scheduled proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Wayne McGee's appeal from the revocation of his 1976 probation for theft of property and his 1979 suspended sentence, resulting in a total of nine years imprisonment after new offenses including rape and burglary. McGee argued that the trial court could not impose a sentence exceeding the combined four-year probation and three-year suspended terms under the 1979 amendment to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2332, citing Culpepper v. State. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the revocation, holding that no sentence had been pronounced at the time of probation, so the statutory limit on revoking a "sentence imposed" did not apply and the court retained authority to impose a fixed prison term upon revocation. The court distinguished probation (postponing sentence) from suspended execution of a sentence and rejected the challenge to the 1979 suspended sentence due to lack of timely objection.

criminal lawprocedure

In Norton v. State, the appellant was convicted of burglary of an office building after being seen opening its front door from inside following the sound of breaking glass, though nothing was taken from the premises and he was acquitted of charges related to a nearby home burglary and theft. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The court reasoned that burglary requires proof of both unlawful entry and specific intent to commit an imprisonable offense inside, and under the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Mullaney v. Wilbur and Patterson v. New York, the prosecution cannot presume or shift the burden of proving the intent element merely from evidence of illegal entry.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved petitioner Robert Goodall seeking a writ of prohibition to bar the Conway County Circuit Court from conducting a de novo trial on an appeal by local citizens challenging the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's grant of a retail liquor license to him under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 48-311(E). The circuit court had denied Goodall's motion to dismiss the appeal, allowing it to retry the matter fully rather than reviewing the administrative record. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the statute's authorization of de novo review is unconstitutional under the state constitution's separation of powers because liquor license issuance turns on the Board's discretionary determination of 'public convenience and advantage,' an executive function not involving fixed private rights that courts may redetermine. The court reasoned that judicial review of such administrative actions is limited to checking for arbitrary or capricious action, rather than substituting the court's judgment for the agency's.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Dr. D. W. Kreutzer, whose employment contract as pathologist and lab director at Boone County Hospital was terminated with 60 days' notice by the Board of Governors. Kreutzer sued in chancery court, alleging the termination decision violated state open-meeting and public-notice laws, and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent his discharge until the claims could be resolved, arguing irreparable harm to his reputation, future employment, and patient care. The chancellor denied the injunction after finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the issuance of a temporary restraining order is discretionary and requires a showing that harm cannot be adequately redressed by money damages; here, the alleged losses from termination of an at-will contract were the type routinely compensable through a later judgment for breach or other claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Ismet Divanovich for capital felony murder during a robbery, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for retrial after identifying multiple errors at trial, including the judge's threats to defense counsel that jeopardized impartiality, admission of testimony implying the defendant wanted to confess after consulting a lawyer, and cross-examination questions about prior misconduct unrelated to veracity. The court determined these issues violated rules of evidence and fair trial standards, though it found the evidence sufficient to support the charge and no error in admitting victim photographs or jury instructions.

criminal lawprocedure