Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2026

Nicholas Mills v. State of Arkansas

Nicholas Mills v. State of Arkansas
Supreme Court of Arkansas · Decided January 29, 2026
2026 Ark. 9; 2026 Ark. 61
Nicholas Mills v. State of Arkansas

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 9

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-24-854

Opinion Delivered: January 29, 2026 NICHOLAS MILLS

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 58CR-23-661]

V.

HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE DISSENTING OPINION FROM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW.

NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice

The court of appeals rejected Nicholas Mills’s challenge to evidence admitted at his sentencing, holding that he could not establish prejudice because he received a sentence less than the statutory maximum. Mills v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 476, at 4–5, 723 S.W.3d 649, 652. No one has ever explained why that rule makes sense or is justified by precedent. See Francis v. State, 2025 Ark. 146, at 1–2. Nor could they since, as I’ve previously explained, “[j]ust because a defendant didn’t receive the maximum sentence doesn’t mean there weren’t any prejudicial errors,” and our previous case law doesn’t establish such a rule. Id. Sadly, however, the majority passes on yet another opportunity to either attempt to justify that rule or, more correctly, overrule it. I respectfully dissent.

WEBB, J., joins.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.