{
  "id": 377539,
  "name": "Charles Laverne SINGLETON v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction",
  "name_abbreviation": "Singleton v. Norris",
  "decision_date": "1998-04-23",
  "docket_number": "CR 98-218",
  "first_page": "668",
  "last_page": "670",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 Ark. 668"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "964 S.W.2d 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a716-90-506",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "477 U.S. 399",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6208971
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/477/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904366
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912752
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907797
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0811-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 Ark. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        9157925
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/324/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298594
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a716-90-506",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(d)(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904366
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Rector raised new issue pertaining to constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-90-506(d)(1) (1987"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Rector raised new issue pertaining to constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-90-506(d)(1) (1987"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912752
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Fairchild argued a constitutional claim of first impression concerning his incompetence to be executed; court held Fairchild was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel from reasserting his mental retardation"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Fairchild argued a constitutional claim of first impression concerning his incompetence to be executed; court held Fairchild was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel from reasserting his mental retardation"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907797
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Pickens raised constitutional issue asserted to be pending before the U. S. Supreme Court"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "court denied stay where Pickens raised constitutional issue asserted to be pending before the U. S. Supreme Court"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0811-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 5698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.013917799840840142
    },
    "sha256": "469cca106e85adc1891a86f20ae07f10981a62d1629281c536a257d5dbd1cd0b",
    "simhash": "1:8f65ca796d62b2d4",
    "word_count": 927
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:57.770497+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Arnold, C.J., and Glaze and Corbin, JJ., dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Laverne SINGLETON v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nRespondent Larry Norris petitions for a rehearing of this court\u2019s decision to stay the execution of Charles Laverne Singleton pending resolution of his petition for a declaratory judgment and all necessary writs to enforce that judgment. Because the execution scheduled for March 11, 1998, was in fact stayed by this court\u2019s order, the issue is now moot. We choose, however, to address issues of significant public interest raised in the rehearing petition that may well reoccur in the future. See Wilson v. Pulaski Ass\u2019n of Classroom Teachers, 330 Ark. 298, 954 S.W.2d 221 (1997); Thomas v. Board of Correction and Community Punishment, 324 Ark. 6, 918 S.W.2d 156 (1996).\nContrary to Norris\u2019s assertion, we consider this case to be categorically different from the cases of Pickens v. Tucker, 316 Ark. 811, 875 S.W.2d 835 (1994), Fairchild v. Norris, 314 Ark. 221, 861 S.W.2d 111 (1993), and Rector v. Clinton, 308 Ark. 104, 823 S.W.2d 829 (1992). In those cases, the issue raised was either not apposite to the Singleton facts or had already been decided. In Pickens, the point at issue solely related to executive clemency and whether the governor, who had represented the State as attorney general in Pickens\u2019s appeal, was impartial. The period of time following our decision was sufficient for a clemency decision by the chief executive prior to the execution date. In Fairchild, we concluded that the federal district court had adequately addressed and decided the mental retardation issue, using the same definition employed in Act 420 of 1993. In Rector, we said that we could not disagree with the circuit court\u2019s finding that there had been no change in Rector\u2019s mental condition since his evaluation by federal authorities in 1989. Thus, we found no violation of the standard set in Ford v. Wainright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).\nWe discount the State\u2019s position that under our Singleton decision, stays of execution would now be warranted in those cases. Here, the point raised in Singleton\u2019s petition for a stay was: Can the State forcibly medicate him for a legitimate reason when a side effect of that medication is to render him legally sane for purposes of execution? That question had not been addressed or decided in this case or in any analogous case. We concluded that the issue presented was bona fide and not frivolous, and, thus, the proceeding in circuit court was \u201ccompetent.\u201d See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a716-90-506(a)(l) (Supp. 1997). We also concluded that the question had to be resolved prefatory to any execution. Under those unique facts, the stay was granted.\nPetition denied.\nArnold, C.J., and Glaze and Corbin, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\ndissenting. The Attorney General correctly points out that the majority opinion staying Mr. Singleton\u2019s execution is contrary to three of this court\u2019s earlier cases where the court denied stays. See Pickens v. State, 316 Ark. 811, 875 S.W.2d 835 (1994) (court denied stay where Pickens raised constitutional issue asserted to be pending before the U. S. Supreme Court); Fairchild v. Norris, 314 Ark. 221, 861 S.W.2d 111 (1993) (court denied stay where Fairchild argued a constitutional claim of first impression concerning his incompetence to be executed; court held Fairchild was barred by doctrine of collateral estoppel from reasserting his mental retardation); and Rector v. Clinton, 308 Ark. 104, 823 S.W.2d 829 (1992) (court denied stay where Rector raised new issue pertaining to constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-90-506(d)(1) (1987), and decision denying stay rested also on the fact that his mental condition had not changed since federal authorities previously found he was aware of the punishment about to be inflicted upon him). In each of the three prior cases \u2014 like Singleton \u2014 the petitioner requested a stay of execution, and argued a last-minute constitutional issue of first impression. Only in Singleton\u2019s case did this court grant a stay, holding a \u201ccompetent judicial proceeding\u201d under \u00a7 16-90-506(a)(1) should be conducted because a \u201cconstitutional issue of first impression\u201d was \u201cripe\u201d for decision.\nThe Attorney General\u2019s point is that death-row inmates have commonly raised last-minute constitutional issues of first impression, but, until now, have been rejected. Section 16-90-506 relied upon in the majority opinion is clear that the General Assembly intended stays of execution to be strictly limited by granting a reprieve to be given by the Governor, the Arkansas Supreme Court via a writ of error, or by any competent judicial proceeding. Here, the Governor had issued no reprieve, nor had this court issued a writ of error. Instead, this court has engrafted an expansive meaning to the words \u201cany competent judicial proceeding\u201d which will permit attorneys for inmates to frame constitutional issues that will compel stays. If the court would have taken the view it takes now of \u00a7 16-90-506, Pickens, Fairchild, and Rector would likely still be in court presenting legal arguments for their release. As this court stated in Rector v. State, \u201c[E]ven death cases must come to an end.\u201d Death sentence cases are always difficult to decide, but this case is no more unique or different than Rector\u2019s, except this case has been in the court system longer \u2014 twenty years. I agree with the Attorney General\u2019s position and would deny any further stay.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hitt, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., and Todd L. Newton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Laverne SINGLETON v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction\nCR 98-218\n964 S.W.2d 366\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion denying rehearing delivered April 23, 1998\nJeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hitt, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., and Todd L. Newton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0668-01",
  "first_page_order": 694,
  "last_page_order": 696
}