The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a syllabus this week. The Arkansas Court of Appeals' September 16, 2026, syllabus lists twenty opinions. There are several candidates for mention here, but we'll note four of them.
Hall appealed the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence in Hall v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 405. He argued that the trial court erred in finding a violation of his conditions and he challenged two conditions on First Amendment grounds.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals first noted that Hall's admission to one violation sufficed to revoke his SIS. Turning to the constitutional challenge, the court declined to address that: since it affirmed the revocation due to violation of another condition, there was no need to address the constitutional challenge. The court noted: "Our supreme court has held that it will not address
a constitutional argument when the case can be disposed of without doing so." Hall, 2026 Ark. App. 405, at 7.
Hernandez v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 400, documents a six-judge panel's disagreement over the adequacy of an Anders "no merits" brief. The majority, citing Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b), took issue with the brief's treatment of the revocation decision at trial.
The revocation decision is an adverse ruling, and the Rule requires counsel to provide “an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Counsel’s argument section includes no reference to the evidence, the circuit court’s findings, or our standard of review, and there is no explanation as to why an appeal of the revocation decision would be wholly without merit.
Hernandez, 2026 Ark. App. 400, at 3. The majority believed counsel's "one-page argument section is noncompliant." Id. at 3 n.2.
The dissenting judge noted: "There is no merit to an appeal of the circuit court's revocation, and no change in the brief will alter that fact." Id. at 7. He believed the majority took "too stringent" of a view of the briefing requirements and reviewed the ways in which the brief was adequate.
This case is worth reviewing if you file Anders briefs.
In Mion v. Bishop, 2026 Ark. App. 408, Mion's counsel argued at trial that the circuit court should apply two cases applicable to "spite fences." On appeal, counsel argued that the circuit court relied on "spite fence" law but did not address cases on nuisance law. The Court of Appeals declined to address this argument.
Mion cannot urge the circuit court to apply the law found in [the two "spite fence" cases] and on appeal ask this court to apply general nuisance law. It is well settled that under the doctrine of invited error, a party may not complain on appeal of an erroneous action of a circuit court if he or she induced or acquiesced in that action. This court has also long held that it will not review an alleged erroneous ruling or order unless a party makes known to the circuit court beforehand the action that he or she desires the court to take or objects to the action of the court and cites the grounds, therefore.
Id. at 11 (citations omitted).
Finally, in Lynch v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 411, the Court of Appeals noted that DHS made an argument for termination on an independent ground not ruled on by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of that argument in the course of its de novo review.
Under our de novo review, we will affirm a termination-of-parental-rights order on a statutory ground that was pled in a DHS petition but not relied on—or addressed—by the circuit court if the ground was proved at the termination hearing. This principle is consistent with the broader rule that an appellate court may affirm when the circuit court reaches the right result, even if for a different reason. Our de novo review opens the entire record for review and does not constrain the appellate court to the circuit court’s rationale, allowing for review of the record for additional reasons to affirm.
Id. at 8-9 (citation omitted).
Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment