Opinion ID: 6110000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 1990, a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury convicted Ward of capital murder for the death of Rebecca Doss and sentenced him to death by lethal injection. This court affirmed his death sentence in three separate appeals. Ward v. State , 338 Ark. 619 , 1 S.W.3d 1 (1999) (affirming death sentence); Ward v. State , 321 Ark. 659 , 906 S.W.2d 685 (1995) (per curiam) (reversing death sentence because the record was insufficient and remanding for a new sentencing trial); Ward v. State , 308 Ark. 415 , 827 S.W.2d 110 (1992) (affirming capital-murder conviction; reversing death sentence because of an evidentiary error). On February 28, 2017, Governor Asa Hutchinson issued a warrant scheduling Ward's execution for April 17, 2017. On March 29, 2017, Ward filed a complaint requesting injunctive and declaratory relief. In his complaint, Ward challenged his competence to be executed and requested a hearing. On April 7, 2017, Ward filed his amended complaint and alleged that (1) his execution would violate his right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment as protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, because he was incompetent and unable to comprehend a punishment of death; (2) the State had violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, pursuant to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 9 of the Arkansas Constitution, because solitary confinement had exacerbated his mental condition; (3) section 16-90-506 did not comport with the due-process requirements of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions and was unconstitutional on its face and as applied; (4) section 16-90-506(d)(1) violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as set forth in Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399 , 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986), and Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930 , 127 S.Ct. 2842 , 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007), by statutorily assigning the competency-for-execution decision to the Director; and (5) the Director's determination of Ward's competence violated the state constitutional guarantees of the separation of powers by purporting to confer such authority on the Director. In support of his complaint, Ward submitted the psychological evaluations of Dr. William S. Logan and affidavits of trial counsel and postconviction counsel. On April 5, 2017, the State moved to dismiss Ward's amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The State asserted that, as a matter of law, [Ward] was not denied due process when he was not given a hearing; that section 16-90-506(d)(1) was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Ward; that section 16-90-506(d)(1) did not violate the separation-of-powers provision of the Arkansas Constitution; and that there was no legal basis to enjoin Ward's execution. The State contended that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to stay an execution and that the procedure in section 16-90-506(d)(1) was a proper exercise of executive-branch authority. The State further asserted that Ward's civil-rights claims regarding his confinement were barred because (1) he had not exhausted his administrative remedies, (2) the allegations were untimely, (3) his claims were collateral attempts to challenge the lawfulness of the death sentence, and (4) the State was immune from suit. The State filed a motion to dismiss Ward's amended complaint on April 11, 2017. Ward filed an objection to the State's motions to dismiss and stated, inter alia ,  With the complaint pending before the court, Mr. Ward has set forth and further intends to augment via Dr. Logan's evaluation and imminent reporting, the requisite showing ... [to] permit, pursuant to a 'substantial threshold showing,' a proper competency-for-execution hearing pursuant to Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930 , 949, 127 S.Ct. 2842 , 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007), and Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399 , 409-10, 106 S.Ct. 2595 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). On April 13, 2017, the circuit court entered its order denying Ward's motion for preliminary injunction and granting the State's motion to dismiss Ward's complaint. In its order, the circuit court ruled, Although [Ward] titles his motion as one seeking a preliminary injunction, it is a request to stay his execution. The law is clear. A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to stay an execution. The motion [for preliminary injunction] is DENIED. The circuit court also dismissed Ward's complaint, ruling, The [State has] sovereign and statutory immunity, [Ward] has failed to exhaust his remedies [on his claims concerning confinement], and [Ward] has failed to state a claim for which the court can grant relief. The case is DISMISSED. That same day, Ward filed an emergency notice of appeal. On April 17, 2017, this court granted an emergency stay of execution filed by Ward. He now brings his appeal from the circuit court's order of dismissal.