Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pelletier v. Kelley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 6, 2018No. CV-18-264PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1DissentHart, J.

I dissent. Obviously, child pornography is condemnable, and while I agree with the majority's holding that a double-jeopardy violation is a cognizable claim in state habeas proceedings, I disagree with its holding that Pelletier's claim is without merit. The ugliness of a given criminal act cannot supersede the most basic and fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system. Based on the facts of this case, the State of Arkansas could only lawfully convict Pelletier of, at most, one count of violating Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-602 (Repl. 2013).

Double jeopardy has long been a fundamental…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Bell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. Haring v. ProsiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. State v. SutherbyWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. LibertySupreme Court of Missouri · 2012

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Michael E. Rea v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of CorrectionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2019
  2. Timothy Mack Clemmons v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of CorrectionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2019
  3. Corey McCullon v. State of ArkansasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2023
  4. Michael Osburn v. Michelle Gray, WardenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API