Opinion highlights for the week of February 16, 2025

The fourteen decisions handed down this week all originated with the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  A couple of those decisions merit mention here.

Bunch v. Ryland, 2025 Ark. App. 96, was dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final order.  The trial court declined to quiet title to certain real property, but ordered that property partitioned instead.  Appellants appealed; the appellee argued that a decree of partition is not a final appealable order.  The court cited Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(1) and caselaw holding that decrees ordering partition are not final orders for appeal purposes; the court did not read the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act as creating an exception to this rule.  Nor did the decree put the court's directive into execution: easements had not been determined, the surveyor's report was still subject to challenge, and tract distribution could be an issue.  "Further judicial action is contemplated before the titles to the parcels are legally in possession of the people who own it.  For this reason, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice." Bunch, 2025 Ark. App. 96, at 5.

Lowery v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 106, involved an attempt to vacate a plea agreement.  Lowery entered a negotiated plea in July 2015; eight years later, in August 2023, she filed a "Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement Due to Breach."  The Court of Appeals viewed this as a collateral attack on the judgment, governed by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  Lowery's "Motion" was untimely under Rule 37.2(c)'s ninety-day limitation.  This time limitation was jurisdictional in nature; thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, which in turn caused the appellate court to lack jurisdiction.

Thank you for reading!

Our new Solicitor General

According to a press release issued by the Attorney General yesterday, Arkansas has a new Solicitor General, Autumn Hamit Patterson.  Ms. Patterson replaces Justice Nicholas Bronni, recently appointed to fill a vacancy between elections on the Arkansas Supreme Court.  Ms. Patterson is pictured above.

Ms. Patterson has prior experience related to this appointment, having served as a Solicitor General Fellow in the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas and as Special Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of the Louisiana Attorney General.  She clerked for judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas.  Her private practice experience includes serving in the Issues and Appeals practice group at Jones Day.  She is a former senior attorney at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and graduated magna cum laude from Duke University School of Law.

The Attorney General's press release notes that "[t]he Office of Solicitor General is responsible for handling Arkansas's appellate and high-profile national litigation, helping shape both state and national jurisprudence."  At present there are five lawyers and a paralegal working in that office.

Information for this post was drawn from the AG's press release and Ms. Patterson's biography at texaspolicy.com

Opinion highlights for the week of February 9, 2025

 

The Court of Appeals was busy again this week - I count twenty-two signed opinions handed down - while the Supreme Court handed down three decisions.  Some of those Court of Appeals decisions shed light on appellate practice and procedure.

Two Anders-related decisions address the record required for those appeals.  In Golden v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 73, although counsel designated the entire record, the voir dire transcript was missing.  The court remanded to settle and supplement the record: "In order to determine whether there has been compliance with Anders, we must have the entire record, including a transcript of the jury-selection process." Golden, 2025 Ark. App. 73, at 1-2.  "We examine all of the proceedings in a no-merit appeal '[i]nstead of reviewing only the parts of the record that the lawyer puts before us.'" Id. at 2.

Similarly, in Ellis v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 90, the court remanded to settle and supplement the record.  Jury selection, opening statements, and closing arguments were omitted from the transcript.  The court again stressed the need for the entire record in a no-merit Anders appeal.

In Dean v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 87, Dean moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the state "did not meet it's burden"; he essentially repeated this argument when he rested. Id. at 2, 3.  On appeal, Dean challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to find that he was in constructive possession of a firearm.  Relying on Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b) and caselaw, the court found that this argument was not preserved for review. "Because Dean's directed-verdict motion failed to specify in what manner the State's proof was insufficient and did not raise the constructive-possession argument he now raises, his sufficiency argument is not preserved for appellate review."  Dean, 2025 Ark. App. 90, at 4-5.

Thank you for reading!