The Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving LaQuincy D. Nance, who sought to challenge his parole eligibility. The court's decision impacts how parole eligibility is determined for individuals with prior convictions in Arkansas. This ruling is significant for inmates and their families who are navigating the parole process.
Nance, who represented himself in court, argued that the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) had incorrectly deemed him ineligible for parole due to a prior conviction for residential burglary. He contended that this conviction should not classify him as having a "prior violent felony" under Arkansas law. The court's decision, delivered on October 8, 2026, clarifies the interpretation of state laws regarding violent felonies and parole eligibility.
The parties involved in the case were LaQuincy D. Nance, the appellant, and the Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board, along with Lona McCastlain, the chairperson, and Dexter Payne, the director of the Arkansas Division of Correction, who were the appellees. The dispute arose when Nance filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus relief after the ADC determined he was ineligible for parole due to his prior conviction. Nance's residential burglary conviction occurred in 2013, and he was sentenced for second-degree murder in January 2024.
Nance's argument centered on Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609, which outlines the criteria for parole eligibility. He claimed that his residential burglary conviction should not be considered a prior violent felony because it occurred before 2015 and because his sentencing order for the second-degree murder did not explicitly state that it was under the relevant statute. However, the circuit court ruled against Nance, stating that the ADC acted within its authority in designating him as ineligible for parole.
The Arkansas Supreme Court, led by Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood, affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court stated, "Because Nance was sentenced for second-degree murder in 2024—well after May 24, 2022—the subsection of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609 that exempts certain residential-burglary convictions from the prior violent-felony rule does not apply." This ruling highlighted the importance of the timing of convictions and sentencing in determining parole eligibility.
The court's opinion emphasized that the language of the statute is clear. It noted that while there is an exception for residential burglaries committed before April 1, 2015, this exception applies only if the sentencing for the current offense occurred before May 24, 2022. Since Nance was sentenced in 2024, he did not qualify for this exception, making his prior burglary conviction a valid reason for denying him parole.
The ruling also addressed Nance's ex post facto argument, which he raised for the first time on appeal. The court declined to consider this argument, stating that it was not presented in lower courts. This decision reinforces the importance of raising all relevant arguments during initial proceedings.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Nance's case. It sets a precedent for how parole eligibility will be assessed for individuals with prior convictions in Arkansas. The court's interpretation of the statute clarifies the rules surrounding violent felonies and reinforces the ADC's authority in making parole determinations. This ruling will likely affect many inmates who have similar prior convictions as they navigate the parole process.
Going forward, individuals with prior convictions in Arkansas may find it more challenging to secure parole if their offenses fall under the definitions outlined in the Arkansas Code. The ruling may also prompt further discussions about the fairness and implications of parole eligibility laws in the state.
As for next steps, it is unclear whether Nance will appeal the decision to a higher court. There may be related cases pending that could further clarify the application of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609. The court filing did not provide details on any potential appeals or related cases.