Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Nicholas Bronni issued a sharp dissenting opinion Wednesday, criticizing his colleagues for refusing to review a criminal case that highlights what he calls an unjustified legal standard for sentencing appeals.
The dissent came in *Nicholas Mills v. State of Arkansas*, where the Supreme Court denied Mills's petition for review of his criminal conviction and sentencing. The case originated in Pope County Circuit Court before Judge Barbara Halsey and was appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
At the center of the dispute is a judicial rule that has prevented Mills and other defendants from successfully challenging evidence admitted during sentencing proceedings. The Arkansas Court of Appeals rejected Mills's challenge to evidence used against him at sentencing, applying a standard that defendants cannot establish prejudice from evidentiary errors if they receive sentences below the statutory maximum.
The court of appeals held in its 2025 decision that Mills "could not establish prejudice because he received a sentence less than the statutory maximum," according to Justice Bronni's dissent. This reasoning effectively creates a barrier for defendants seeking to overturn convictions or sentences based on improper evidence, as long as judges impose penalties below the maximum allowed by law.
Justice Bronni directly challenged this approach, writing that "[n]o one has ever explained why that rule makes sense or is justified by precedent." His dissent references a previous case, *Francis v. State*, where he made similar arguments against this legal standard.
In that earlier case, Justice Bronni explained his position more fully, arguing that "[j]ust because a defendant didn't receive the maximum sentence doesn't mean there weren't any prejudicial errors." He contends that Arkansas case law does not actually establish such a restrictive rule for evaluating sentencing appeals.
The dissenting justice's criticism extends beyond the specific legal standard to the court's broader approach to criminal appeals. He argued that the majority "passes on yet another opportunity to either attempt to justify that rule or, more correctly, overrule it."
This represents a continuing disagreement within the Arkansas Supreme Court about how to evaluate claims of error in criminal sentencing proceedings. The current standard effectively means that defendants who receive substantial prison terms or other penalties cannot challenge evidentiary errors as long as those sentences fall short of the maximum possible punishment.
For criminal defendants and their attorneys, this standard creates significant hurdles in appealing convictions. Even if improper evidence influenced a judge's sentencing decision, defendants must prove not only that errors occurred but also that those errors would have resulted in a more lenient sentence than what they received.
Justice Bronni was joined in his dissent by Justice Webb, indicating that at least two members of the Arkansas Supreme Court believe the current standard should be reconsidered. However, the majority of justices declined to grant Mills's petition for review, allowing the court of appeals decision to stand.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in criminal justice regarding the standards courts should apply when reviewing potential errors in trial proceedings. Defense attorneys often argue that any improper evidence admission should warrant review, while prosecutors and some judges contend that appellate courts should focus on whether errors actually affected case outcomes.
The Mills case does not reveal specific details about what evidence was challenged or what sentence Mills received. The Supreme Court's order focused solely on the procedural question of whether to review the case, rather than the underlying merits of Mills's claims.
Justice Bronni's dissent suggests this issue will continue to arise in Arkansas criminal appeals. His pointed criticism of the majority's refusal to address the standard indicates he believes the court should either provide stronger justification for the current rule or abandon it entirely.
The debate reflects broader questions about how appellate courts should balance finality in criminal cases against defendants' rights to challenge potentially prejudicial errors. Some courts apply strict harmless error standards that require defendants to show errors likely affected their sentences, while others take more liberal approaches to reviewing claimed mistakes.
For Arkansas practitioners, the dissent serves as a signal that challenges to the sub-maximum sentence standard may continue to reach the state's highest court. Justice Bronni's language suggests he will continue pressing for reconsideration of this issue in future cases.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's handling of the Mills petition demonstrates how procedural standards can significantly impact criminal defendants' ability to obtain appellate relief, even when substantive errors may have occurred during their proceedings.