Opinion highlights for the week of November 9, 2025

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down eleven decisions on November 12; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five decisions the next day.  We'll look at one decision from each court.

Wood v. State, 2025 Ark. 175, involves a pro se appeal from the denial of a petition to correct an illegal sentence.  The circuit court denied Wood's petition on July 1, 2024.  Wood filed a motion for reconsideration on July 19, 2024; this was denied by the circuit court on August 15, 2024.  Wood then filed a notice of appeal on September 11, 2024.

The State argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because Wood did not file his motion for reconsideration within ten days after judgment, as required by Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. (4)(b).  The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

However, the time for filing posttrial motions in criminal cases is not limited to ten days.  Rather, in a criminal case, a posttrial motion for reconsideration may be filed within thirty days of the circuit court's order, and the time to file a notice of appeal is consequently extended to an additional thirty days from the date the posttrial motion has been denied.

Id. at 2.  The court cited Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3 and Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(b)(1) in support, and observed that "[t]hese two criminal-procedure rules have been generally applied in postconviction appellate proceedings when the circuit court rules on the reconsideration motion." Wood, 2025 Ark. 175, at 2.  Thus, given the timing of Wood's filings, the court had jurisdiction to consider his appeal.

 Snyder v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 539, addressed a number of issues; one was an argument that the trial court erred by denying a motion for a new trial.  The Court of Appeals found that Snyder's argument on this point was not preserved.

 

 An issue must be presented to the circuit court at the earliest opportunity to preserve it for appeal.  An objection made for the first time in a motion for new trial is untimely, and a motion for new trial cannot be used as an avenue to raise new allegations of error that have not been raised and preserved at trial.  Here, Smith’s allegations of Brady violations are based on Young’s and Officer Kelsey’s trial testimony. However, Smith did not object at trial, and he cannot use a motion for new trial to raise the issues.

Id. at 9-10 (citations omitted).

Thanks for reading!