Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Smith
Citations: 340 Ark. 257; 12 S.W.3d 629; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 26Docket: CR 99-353
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 27, 2000; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On March 18, 1999, Clay King Smith was convicted by a jury of five counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. Following the conviction, Smith's counsel filed a partial record for appeal, and a stay of execution was granted on April 15, 1999. Subsequently, Smith filed a pro se motion to withdraw the appeal and requested remand to the trial court for execution of his death sentence. On July 8, 1999, the court remanded the case to the trial court to determine if Smith had the capacity to understand and knowingly waive his right to appeal his death sentence. The State submitted a transcript of the remand proceedings and sought a writ of certiorari to affirm the trial court’s finding that Smith was competent to waive his appeals, including postconviction remedies. Before the State’s petition was filed, the court issued its decision in State v. Robbins, establishing an affirmative duty to review the records of all death penalty cases for serious errors. The Robbins decision modified and overruled aspects of a previous ruling in Franz v. State concerning the waiver of appeal rights. Despite this modification, it was clarified that a defendant can still waive their right to appeal if competent. Given the circumstances, the court determined that an automatic review of the entire record was warranted due to the imposition of the death penalty and Smith's desire to waive his appeal. The court issued a writ of certiorari directing the Jefferson County Circuit Clerk and court reporter to prepare and file the complete record within ninety days. Furthermore, Tammy Harris was appointed to assist in the review of the record, abstracting it and identifying any prejudicial errors as guided by the Robbins decision.