Arnold v. State
2011 Ark. 395
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Arnold was convicted in 1998 in Pulaski County Circuit Court of criminal solicitation to commit capital murder and conspiracy to commit theft by deception, receiving 480 months total incarceration.
- Appendix: Arnold was paroled in 2008 and filed petitions to seal her convictions under expungement statutes 5-4-105(a)(2) and 16-93-1201 to -1210.
- The circuit court denied sealing petitions, ruling Arnold was not governed by those statutes, and the petitions were denied in January 2009.
- Arnold later filed new petitions arguing she was sentenced under 5-4-105(a)(1) and 16-93-301 to -303, and moved for relief under Rule 60(a).
- The trial court held that the expungement statutes were constitutional and denied relief; Arnold appealed, including a separate challenge to oral argument procedures.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding rational-basis review applicable and rejecting Arnold’s constitutional challenges to the expungement statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should strict scrutiny apply to the expungement statutes? | Arnold argues strict scrutiny applies because the statutes burden fundamental rights. | State contends standing and rational-basis review suffice; no fundamental right implicated. | No strict scrutiny applied; standing lacking, but rational-basis review sustains statutes. |
| Do 5-4-105(a)(1) and 16-93-301 to -303 violate rights to plead not guilty, jury trial, due process, or equal protection? | Arnold claims unequal treatment and due-process violations for those not pleading guilty. | Statutes do not infringe rights; rational basis applies and classification is permissible. | Statutes constitutional under rational-basis review; no due-process or equal-protection violations shown. |
| Do the expungement statutes create a liberty interest requiring due-process protections? | Arnold asserts expungement rights create a liberty interest and procedural protections are required. | No liberty interest; expungement is not guaranteed by statute. | No liberty interest created; expungement statutes do not implicate due process. |
| Was Arnold properly sentenced and expungement unavailable under the statutes as applied? | If statutes unconstitutional or inapplicable, sentence could be illegal and expungement available. | Statutes constitutional and applicable; no basis to invalidate sentence or grant expungement. | Statutes constitutional as applied; Arnold’s sentence affirmed and expungement not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webb, 373 Ark. 65 (2008) (expungement issues; statutory validity and application context)
- Gallas v. Alexander, 371 Ark. 106 (2007) (standing to challenge constitutionality; injury or prejudice required)
- Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600 (2002) (two types of constitutional challenges: facial vs. as-applied)
- LaFont v. Mixon, 2010 Ark. 450 (2010) (rational-basis review and constitutional analysis framework)
- United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (plea bargaining and ancillary incentives; permissible government encouragement)
- Jackson v. United States, 390 U.S. 570 (1968) (cannot deter exercise of rights by punishment disparity)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis standard and permissible classifications)