By my count, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down nineteen decisions on Wednesday, April 29, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five the next day. We'll note a couple of those Supreme Court decisions here, although there are other candidates among the Court of Appeals' decisions.
Norris v. Independence County, 2026 Ark. 91, made the news. In 2025, the Arkansas General Assembly adopted Act 975, which attempted to place original jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to legislation in the Court of Appeals. In Norris, the trial court dismissed a constitutional challenge to an Arkansas Code provision based on Act 975. Norris appealed that dismissal, arguing that Act 975 itself is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court agreed with Norris. It found that Ark. Const. amend. 80, section 5, excluded original jurisdiction when it expressly granted appellate jurisdiction - alone - to the Court of Appeals. Similarly, section 6(A) of that amendment granted original jurisdiction to circuit courts. Act 975 could not vary those constitutional provisions by removing original jurisdiction from the circuit courts and conferring it on the Court of Appeals.
Happily, the Court of Appeals can now return to being a court of (only) appellate jurisdiction.
State v. Ramirez, 2026 Ark. 92, included a discussion about the State's ability to appeal under Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3. An earlier prosecution against Ramirez was nolle prossed on the condition that he successfully enlist in the Marines. That did not happen, and after Ramirez was involved in another shooting a few months later, the State attempted to reinstate the original prosecution. The trial court granted Ramirez's motion to dismiss, and the State appealed.
The majority noted the rule's language authorizing the State to appeal when necessary to maintain "the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law." This language permits an appeal when the appellate holding would establish important precedent or when the case involves a legal issue with widespread ramifications.
The majority concluded that this appeal met those standards: "It presents a novel question about what law governs an agreement to nolle pros pending charges and the circumstances under which the State may continue to pursue charges." Ramirez, 2026 Ark. 92, at 4. This issue was likely to arise again.
Consequently, we conclude that this appeal has widespread ramifications, that our review is necessary to maintain uniformity, and that this is precisely the kind of appeal that Rule 3 gives us the flexibility to hear. We grant the State’s appeal.
Id. The majority proceeded to the merits.
Thank you for reading.
