Arkansas Court of Appeals overturns 60-year prison sentence in Pine Bluff shooting
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The Arkansas Court of Appeals overturned a 60-year prison sentence for a man in connection with a 2018 Pine Bluff shooting.
Joseph Gilbert was found guilty of battery by a jury in a 2023 trial. The court on Wednesday ruled that Gilbert's right to a speedy trial had been violated and dismissed the verdict.
The jury had sentenced Gilbert to 60 years and a $15,000 fine for battery in the first degree and the use of a gun during the crime.
Arkansas Supreme Court orders gag order lifted in Lonoke County deadly shooting
The jury verdict and the appeals court decision came after a Nov. 17, 2018, shooting in Pine Bluff of a woman in her home. Police questioned Gilbert about the shooting the day after the shooting, but he gave an alibi and was released.
Gilbert had gone to the police station to give his alibi and was shackled while waiting for a detective to speak with him, according to the court's ruling. He was released after speaking with the detective.
Court documents show Arkansas filed a criminal information charging Gilbert with battery in January 2019. Officials served an arrest warrant on him in October 2022.
Arkansas felon can apply for early parole due to loophole in state law
In November 2023, a jury sentenced Gilbert to prison. Prior to the conviction, Gilbert filed a motion on July 21, 2023, requesting that his case be dismissed on grounds of speedy trial. As pointed out in the appeals court order, the time between his initial arrest in November 2018, when the detective shackled him, and his trial date exceeded 12 months, thereby violating the speedy trial provision of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the appeal, stating that he was not arrested until October 2022 and the earlier questioning did not constitute an arrest.
Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request
The appeals court disagreed with the circuit court in its ruling, stating that 'under any definition,' Gilbert was arrested when a detective shackled him, preventing him from leaving. The court also noted in the ruling that 'Arrest' is not defined in the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Man, 27, dies while cliff diving in Iron Range mine pit
Man, 27, dies while cliff diving in Iron Range mine pit originally appeared on Bring Me The News. A man was found dead after going missing while cliff diving at a mine pit on Minnesota's Iron Range. The St. Louis County Sheriff's Office says it received a missing persons report at the Genoa mine pit near Gilbert at 4:18 p.m. Thursday, with a witness saying he saw his friend jump into the water, resurface, and then disappear around the corner. The friend couldn't find the 27-year-old and dialed 911. After an extensive search, the man was found dead in the water. The victim is from the Virginia area, but his name is being withheld pending family notification. This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Corrections Board lawsuit against governor stays alive with Supreme Court ruling
Arkansas Supreme Court (Courtesy Photo) A lawsuit over who has the ultimate authority over the state prison system gained renewed life Thursday with the dismissal of a state appeal of a lower court preliminary injunction. The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Dec. 14, 2023 against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the secretary of state and Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Act 185 and 659 of 2023. Act 185 requires the secretary of corrections to serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than the board, while Act 659 alters the reporting structure for the directors of the Division of Correction and Division of Community Correction, requiring them to serve at the pleasure of the secretary rather than the board. The board argued the laws violate Amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution, which protects the power of constitutional boards like the board of corrections from 'usurpation by the Governor or the General Assembly, or both,' according to Thursday's ruling. Arkansas judge sides with prison board in dispute with governor, corrections secretary A circuit court judge granted a preliminary injunction in January 2024, which Attorney General Tim Griffin appealed. The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday dismissed the state's motion to send the case back to the circuit court, order the preliminary injunction vacated and the case dismissed as moot. The high court also dismissed a motion to disqualify the corrections board's attorney from further participation in proceedings before the court. In its motion to remand, the state argues the controversy ended when the board fired former Corrections Secretary Joe Profiri. The firing was part of a dispute between the board and the executive branch that started in late 2023 over who controls the state's prison system. The board's refusal in November 2023 to approve a request to increase prison capacity by 500 beds prompted harsh public criticism from Griffin and Sanders. The board responded by hiring an outside attorney the following month to represent it in employment matters. Because Profiri was fired prior to the entry of the preliminary injunction, the lower court's finding of irreparable harm was erroneous, the state argued. The board said it wasn't seeking court confirmation of its right to fire Profiri, but relief from the legislation regarding the board's authority under Amendment 33. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Karen Baker said she agreed with the board's assertion that Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the ultimate question of whether the board controls the secretary or division directors, and therefore the dispute is not specific to the individual holding the secretary's office. 'The Board's complaint concerns the Challenged Legislation and the resulting changes to the Board's supervisory authority. This dispute exists notwithstanding the individual who holds the Secretary position and is not personal to Secretary Profiri,' Baker wrote. 'Further, because this case presents an existing legal controversy, it is not moot. Therefore, we deny appellants' motion to remand.' The state also filed a motion to disqualify the legal counsel obtained by the corrections board, arguing the firm was obtained illegally. The board didn't follow state law for securing outside counsel, and the board did not have the 'authority to hire special counsel because the Board is not a constitutional officer,' the attorney general's motion argued. The circuit court denied this motion, explaining that 'the Board is a constitutionally created board, making its members constitutional officers' who therefore had the legal authority to hire special counsel. The attorney general typically represents state agencies, but state law gives constitutional officers the ability to hire outside counsel when they disagree with the attorney general over a constitutional provision. In dismissing this motion, Baker notes the board correctly points out that 'an order denying a motion to disqualify adversary's counsel in a civil proceeding is not an appealable final order.' 'As a general rule, an appeal from an interlocutory decision brings up for review only the decision from which the appeal was taken, here, the granting of an injunction,' Baker wrote. The motion to disqualify the attorney is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's review of the preliminary injunction, she said. The high court majority affirmed the lower court's issuance of an injunction because its 'findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous.' The crux of the lawsuit, Baker wrote, is whether the board retains ultimate authority over the corrections secretary and directors or whether the challenged legislation constitutionally transfers that power to the governor and corrections secretary. 'The evidence presented to the circuit court demonstrates that, in the absence of the injunction, the dispute will be ongoing until the constitutionality of the Challenged Legislation is resolved,' Baker said. 'This, coupled with appellants' failure to even argue their likelihood of success on the merits, leaves us with little choice under our deferential standard of review. 'We hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated that irreparable harm would result in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction, and we affirm,' she added. Arkansas Supreme Court sends AG's FOIA lawsuit against prison board back to circuit court Special Justices Troy Braswell and Bud Cummins joined in the decision. Associate Justice Barbara Webb concurred in part and dissented in part. Associate Justice Shawn Womack dissented. Associate Justices Cody Hiland and Nicholas Bronni, both of whom were appointed by the governor, did not participate. Webb wrote that she agreed with the majority that the matter is not moot because Profiri's termination doesn't resolve the question of whether Acts 185 and 659 of 2023 are unconstitutional. She also agreed that it's not appropriate to disqualify the board's counsel at this time. However, she argues the board 'failed to demonstrate irreparable harm' and the circuit court therefore erred in enjoining the challenged acts. 'The crux of the Board's claim for irreparable harm was Secretary Profiri's alleged acts of insubordination, which were directly attributable to Act 185 requiring the Secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Governor rather than the Board,' Webb wrote. 'This harm is not irreparable…By definition, if a secretary may be terminated and his actions undone, then it cannot be said that any harm resulting therefrom is 'irreparable.'' In his dissenting opinion, Womack argues the court must vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the lawsuit because sovereign immunity bars the board's lawsuit against the governor, corrections secretary and Department of Corrections. Sovereign immunity, which Womack cites often in court opinions, is the legal doctrine that the state cannot be sued in its own courts. 'Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm — a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction,' Womack wrote 'Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion in this case.' Regarding the issue of the disqualification of the board's 'potentially illegally retained counsel, I again remind citizens of this state of their ability to protect themselves 'against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever,'' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Arkansas Court of Appeals overturns 60-year prison sentence in Pine Bluff shooting
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The Arkansas Court of Appeals overturned a 60-year prison sentence for a man in connection with a 2018 Pine Bluff shooting. Joseph Gilbert was found guilty of battery by a jury in a 2023 trial. The court on Wednesday ruled that Gilbert's right to a speedy trial had been violated and dismissed the verdict. The jury had sentenced Gilbert to 60 years and a $15,000 fine for battery in the first degree and the use of a gun during the crime. Arkansas Supreme Court orders gag order lifted in Lonoke County deadly shooting The jury verdict and the appeals court decision came after a Nov. 17, 2018, shooting in Pine Bluff of a woman in her home. Police questioned Gilbert about the shooting the day after the shooting, but he gave an alibi and was released. Gilbert had gone to the police station to give his alibi and was shackled while waiting for a detective to speak with him, according to the court's ruling. He was released after speaking with the detective. Court documents show Arkansas filed a criminal information charging Gilbert with battery in January 2019. Officials served an arrest warrant on him in October 2022. Arkansas felon can apply for early parole due to loophole in state law In November 2023, a jury sentenced Gilbert to prison. Prior to the conviction, Gilbert filed a motion on July 21, 2023, requesting that his case be dismissed on grounds of speedy trial. As pointed out in the appeals court order, the time between his initial arrest in November 2018, when the detective shackled him, and his trial date exceeded 12 months, thereby violating the speedy trial provision of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the appeal, stating that he was not arrested until October 2022 and the earlier questioning did not constitute an arrest. Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request The appeals court disagreed with the circuit court in its ruling, stating that 'under any definition,' Gilbert was arrested when a detective shackled him, preventing him from leaving. The court also noted in the ruling that 'Arrest' is not defined in the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
