Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Jeffrey Scott Ratchford’s second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a writ of error coram nobis. The court held that Ratchford was not diligent because he knew or could have raised his claim concerning a 2001 medical report years earlier and in his first coram-nobis petition. The court also concluded that the report did not establish a Brady violation because it would not have undermined confidence in the rape conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ratchford's second petition to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider coram-nobis relief should be denied as an abuse of the writ and for lack of due diligence.
- Whether the 2001 medical report established a Brady violation warranting coram-nobis relief.
- Whether the medical report was sufficiently favorable and material to undermine confidence in the rape conviction.
Holdings
- The second petition was properly denied because Ratchford failed to exercise due diligence; he knew or could have raised the claim concerning the medical report years earlier and could have included it in his first coram-nobis petition.
- The medical report did not establish a Brady violation warranting coram-nobis relief.
- Because the judgment had been affirmed on appeal, Ratchford was required to obtain permission from the Supreme Court of Arkansas before the circuit court could entertain a coram-nobis petition.
Key quotations
“A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy more known for its denial than its approval.” (at 2)
“The requirements are a sequence of events, each of which a petitioner must show to prove due diligence.” (at 6)
“The testimony of a rape victim, standing by itself, constitutes sufficient evidence to support a conviction.” (at 7)
Factual background
Ratchford was convicted of raping his thirteen-year-old daughter and sexually assaulting her and his twelve-year-old daughter. He received a life sentence for rape and concurrent 120-month sentences for the two sexual-assault convictions. He later relied on a 2001 Michigan medical examination of the rape victim, which reported no physical injury but stated that the victim's allegations and presentation were convincing to the examiner.
Procedural history
Ratchford was convicted by a jury in 2002 of rape of a child under fourteen and two counts of first-degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the judgment as modified in 2004. It denied Ratchford's first coram-nobis-related petition in 2014, concluding that the asserted Brady claim was actually an ineffective-assistance claim and was not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings. The court denied this second petition because the claim was untimely and successive, and because the alleged medical report did not establish a Brady violation or undermine confidence in the verdict.