In enacting this subchapter, it is the intent of the General Assembly to specify the procedures and standards pursuant to which a sentencing body shall conform in making a determination as to whether a sentence of death is to be imposed upon a conviction of capital murder.
If the provisions of this subchapter respecting sentencing procedures are held invalid with regard to the imposition of a sentence of death or a sentence of death is declared to be invalid per se, it is the intent of the General Assembly that:
Capital murder is punishable by life imprisonment without parole; and
The procedures and findings required by §§ 5-4-602 — 5-4-605, 5-4-607, and 5-4-608 are deemed repealed and of no effect.
Circuit court erred by denying appellant juvenile's petition for writ of habeas corpus; because he was only fourteen years old when he committed capital-murder and aggravated-robbery, his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole violated the Eighth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VIII. In considering the capital-murder statute as it pertained to juveniles, the Supreme Court of Arkansas severed portions of § 5-10-101(c) which provided that capital murder was punishable by death or life imprisonment without parole pursuant to this section and §§ 5-4-605, 5-4-607, and 5-4-608.
Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175, 426 S.W.3d 906 (2013).
Camargo v. State, 940 S.W.2d 464 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 6ד§ 5-4-601 that reads as follows: (a) It is the intention of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, in enacting this subchapter, to specify the procedures and standards pursuant to which a sentencing body must conform in making a determination as to whether a sentence of…”
Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 2דIn his petition, Gordon contended that at the time of the offense, January 28, 1995, pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-601 (Repl.2006), capital murder was punishable only by | ¡¡either life imprisonment or death.”
Nooner v. State, 907 S.W.2d 677 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2דMandatory Review Nooner argues under two of his 15 points that Arkansas statutes dealing with capital murder ( Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-601 , etseq. (Repl. 1993)) must be deemed unconstitutional for failure to provide for mandatory appeals of all death cases.”
Wilson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 734 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 4דSee Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-4-601 through 5-4-603 (1987 and Supp.”
Rush v. State, 919 S.W.2d 933 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 4דSee Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-601, et seq. (Repl.1993).”
Donaldson v. State, 257 S.W.3d 74 (Ark. 2007). “(b) Except as provided by §§ 5-4-601 - 5-4-605,5-4-607, and 5-4-608, the court shall fix punishment as authorized by this chapter in any case in where: (1) The defendant pleads guilty to an offense; or (2) The defendant’s guilt is tried by the court; or (3) The jury fails to…”
Hagar v. State, 19 S.W.3d 16 (Ark. 2000). “1997) provides that: (b) Except as provided by §§ 5-4-601'— 5-4-605, 5-4-607, and 5-4-608, the court shall fix punishment as authorized by this chapter in any case where: (1) The defendant pleads guilty to an offense; or (2) The defendant’s guilt is tried by the court; or (3)…”
Johnson v. State, 944 S.W.2d 115 (Ark. 1997). “(b) Except as provided by §§ 5-4-601 — 5-4-605, 5-4-607, and 5-4-608, the court shall fix punishment as authorized by this chapter in any case where: (1) The defendant pleads guilty to an offense; or (2) The defendant’s guilt is tried by the court; or (3) The jury fails to agree…”
Jackson v. Norris (E.D. Ark. 2020). “this requirement “largely duplicates” the second prong under § 5-4-601(a), see Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-601(a) — 2 cases
Camargo v. State, 940 S.W.2d 464 (Ark. 1997). “§ 5-4-601 that reads as follows: (a) It is the intention of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, in enacting this subchapter, to specify the procedures and standards pursuant to which a sentencing body must conform in making a determination as to whether a sentence of…”
Jackson v. Norris (E.D. Ark. 2020). “this requirement “largely duplicates” the second prong under § 5-4-601(a), see Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.