The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on November 12, 2026, that Martinous Moore's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. Moore, a convicted capital murderer, argued that he was not properly rearraigned after changes were made to his criminal information. This ruling is significant as it confirms the standards for habeas corpus claims in Arkansas and upholds the integrity of Moore's original conviction.

Moore's case dates back nearly two decades when he was convicted of murdering Brady Alexander in 2006. The court's decision impacts not only Moore but also sets a precedent regarding the handling of similar habeas corpus petitions in the future.

Background

Martinous Moore was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery in 2006. On the night of the crime, he and two accomplices lured Alexander to a Waffle House parking lot in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Moore shot and killed him. The court sentenced Moore to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with an additional 480 months for the robbery.

Moore's conviction was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in a previous appeal. However, in his recent petition, he contended that his due process rights were violated because he was not rearraigned after his criminal information was amended to include aggravated battery. He claimed that this amendment materially altered the charges against him.

The case eventually reached the Arkansas Supreme Court after the Lincoln County Circuit Court denied Moore's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court found that Moore's claims were not valid under the standards for habeas corpus proceedings.

The Ruling

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Moore's claims were not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition. The court explained that to succeed in a habeas claim, a petitioner must demonstrate probable cause to believe they are detained without lawful authority or claim actual innocence.

The court ruled, "Moore fails to meet that standard. Claims concerning a lack of arraignment are, at most, trial errors that Moore should have raised on direct appeal."

Justice Nicholas J. Bronni delivered the opinion of the court, with Special Justice Cory Cox joining. Justice Webb did not participate in the ruling. The court's decision reinforces the idea that procedural errors must be raised during the trial or direct appeal process, rather than through a habeas petition.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future habeas corpus petitions in Arkansas. It clarifies that claims related to trial errors, such as failure to rearraign, should be presented during the original trial or on direct appeal. This decision may discourage inmates from filing habeas petitions based on claims that could have been previously addressed.

The court's affirmation of the circuit court's ruling also emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules in criminal cases. It serves as a reminder that individuals seeking relief through habeas corpus must meet specific legal standards, which Moore failed to do.

What's Next

Moore's options for appeal are limited following the Supreme Court's ruling. He may seek further legal avenues, but the court's decision effectively closes the door on his current habeas corpus claims. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.