Little Rock, AR
Criminal defense Lawyer at Little Rock, AR
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Appeals, Family
OUTCOME: Lost on appeal to U.S. Supreme Court; negotiated favorable plea on remand
Interlocutory appeal of capital murder case to U.S. Supreme Court on double jeopardy issue and paved way for negotiations where client pled "no contest" to murder for a 10 year sentence.
OUTCOME: The petition for writ of certiorari was granted and the case was remanded to the trial court. The trial court was ordered to suspend the proceeding and direct a state mental examination.
Defendant requested a state mental examination. He had already had a federal mental examination. The trial court erred in deeming the federal mental evaluation sufficient to satisfy Arkansas' mandatory ... statutory scheme governing state mental evaluations found under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305. The statute dictated that, when defendant announced his intention to rely on the defense of mental disease or defect the court was to immediately suspend prosecution proceedings. The trial judge acted in derogation of the law by failing to suspend the proceedings until defendant had undergone a state psychiatric examination. The trial court disregarded the clear, mandatory language of the statute and failed to suspend further proceedings and order a mental evaluation. The trial court's order, ruling that the federal mental report met the requirements of § 5-2-305, was not a final order from which defendant could appeal. The trial judge's decision to fashion his own remedy by adopting the federal examination was in clear contradiction of the plain language of § 5-2-305(b), and was a gross abuse of his discretion that warranted the granting of a writ of certiorari.
OUTCOME: The front seat defendant's conviction was reversed and dismissed. The backseat defendant's conviction was affirmed.
Defendants argued that the there was insufficient evidence that either of them had constructively possessed a firearm. Additionally, the backseat defendant, argued that the State's evidence that he had ... bent over on at least two occasions while the police were attempting to stop the vehicle was not suspicious behavior. The appellate court held that a defendant's mere proximity to an item not in plain view was not proof that that defendant constructively possessed the item and that there was not substantial evidence that the front seat defendant constructively possessed the handgun under the front passenger seat. The officer testified that after noticing the back seat was not securely fastened, he lifted the seat and found a handgun. The officer also noted that when the officers attempted to determine the backseat defendant's identity, he gave several different dates of birth and repeatedly identified himself as someone else. The appellate court held that that defendant's close proximity to the handgun, coupled with his suspicious behavior on two occasions, was clearly indicative of constructive possession. There was substantial evidence that he had possessed the gun.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
