IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2020 Ark. 115 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered March 12, 2020 IN RE ADMINISTRATIVE PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS PER CURIAM When the Supreme Court addressed administrative plans submitted by district courts, certain plans were not approved and some plans required amendments. Those courts were directed to resubmit plans. See In re Administrative Plans for District Courts, 2019 Ark. 398 (per curiam). Today, we approve the administrative plans submitted by the following district courts: District Court of Greene County; District Court of Crittenden County; District Court of Pope County; Little Rock District Court; North Little Rock District Court; District Court of Miller County and Lafayette County; District Court of Clark County; District Court of Sebastian County, Fort Smith District; District Court of Baxter County and Marion County; District Court of Cleburne County; District Court of Faulkner County and Van Buren County; District Court of Jackson County; District Court of Sharp County; District Court of Franklin County, Ozark District; District Court of Fulton County; District Court of Garland County; and District Court of Lonoke County, Southern District. Related to the plan submitted by the Little Rock District Court, it was necessary for the Sixth Circuit’s administrative plan to be amended to establish a mental health specialty program to be administered by the district court. The Sixth Circuit has amended its plan, which we approve today. SPECIALTY PROGRAMS In approving these administrative plans, we repeat the caveat in our previous orders with respect to circuit and district court administrative plans. The court may require additional changes to the specialty programs included in approved circuit and district court plans. We intend to ensure specialty programs in the state are operating according to legal authority, are accomplishing their mission, and are adhering to recognized standards of operation. No program may be continued that utilizes sentencing options or the imposition of financial assessment or sanctions that have not been authorized by the General Assembly. We will notify those courts affected by the requirement for these amendments. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
