Opinion highlights for the week of May 17, 2026 - part one

 

An earlier post noted that the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down forty-five decisions on May 20, 2026.  Having reviewed decisions authored by six judges, I will note four of those decisions here.  A subsequent post will highlight decisions authored by the other six judges.

These four cases involve fairly common appellate practice issues, but they provide worthwhile reminders.

Finney v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 308, involves a probation revocation appeal.  Finney argued that the State did not prove that he inexcusably violated his probationary terms and conditions.  However, the trial court revoked his probation on multiple grounds, and Finney failed to challenge at least one of them on appeal.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the rule that "[w]hen the circuit court bases its decision to revoke on multiple independent grounds, and the appellant fails to challenge any independent alternative basis for the judgment, we will affirm without addressing the arguments targeted to the other grounds." Id. at 3.

Hernandez v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 315 also involves probation revocation.  Counsel for Hernandez filed an Anders brief, but the Court of Appeals ordered rebriefing.  Hernandez provides a good review of Anders' requirements and illustrates its application, but I want to note this line from the Hernandez opinion: "We will continue to order rebriefing until compliance with Anders and Rule 4- 3(b)(1) is achieved." Hernandez, 2026 Ark. App. 315, at 3.

Goodnight v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 316, is a child custody appeal.  The Court of Appeals listed seven arguments raised by Goodnight, but declined to address any of them.

As the Department explains, Kristen does not support any of the above arguments with citations to any legal authority. “We do not consider arguments without convincing argument or citation to authority where it is not apparent without further research that the arguments are well-taken.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted).  The Court of Appeals did consider a "best interest" argument.

Finally, McDaniel v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 327, addresses an appeal from a second-degree sexual assault conviction.  The Court of Appeals offered a cautionary note about McDaniel's statement of the case and the facts, but "all appellate counsel" are encouraged to pay attention here:

Were it not for the State’s thorough supplemental statement of the case and facts, we would not reach the merits of this appeal without first requiring that the case be rebriefed. Appellant’s statement of the case and facts is woefully deficient, providing only an overview of the case’s procedural path to trial, a brief description of the portion of the trial testimony and the instruction to which McDaniel objected, and references to his motions for directed verdict. The statement of the case does not provide any substantive testimony or evidence, which is especially troubling when considering that the transcript is over one thousand pages long and McDaniel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 directs counsel on the required contents of appellate briefs: the statement of the case and facts shall include all information in the appellate record that is essential to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(6). The requirements of Rule 4-2 are mandatory. McDaniel’s counsel is not alone in failing to provide an adequate statement of the case. This is a frequent occurrence and merits all appellate counsel’s review of Rule 4-2 and adherence thereto.

McDaniel, 2026 Ark. App. 327, at 2 n.1 (citation omitted).

Thank you for reading.