Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Edward Carter’s third pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a writ of error coram nobis concerning his aggravated-robbery conviction. The court held that Carter’s repeated Brady claims, allegations of false testimony and withheld statements, and challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence were unsupported, not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, or previously addressed. His motion for leave to file a response was deemed moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Carter demonstrated a cognizable ground for a writ of error coram nobis based on alleged Brady violations and allegedly withheld or newly discovered evidence.
- Whether allegations that a witness gave false testimony or that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction established fundamental error warranting permission to pursue coram nobis relief.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Arkansas should grant permission to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider the coram nobis petition.
Holdings
- Permission to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a coram nobis petition is available only when the petitioner demonstrates a cognizable, fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record under compelling circumstances.
- A Brady-based coram nobis claim requires a showing that favorable evidence was suppressed by the State and that prejudice resulted, including a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the proceeding's result.
- Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, witness credibility, and ordinary trial error are not cognizable grounds for coram nobis relief and must be addressed at trial or, when appropriate, on direct appeal.
- An allegation that a witness gave false testimony, or a claim based solely on newly discovered evidence, does not establish a coram nobis ground absent proof of fundamental error and the required effect on the judgment.
Key quotations
“A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy.” (at 2)
“The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.” (at 2)
“Issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings.” (at 5)
“coram nobis proceedings do not provide a petitioner with a forum to relitigate the issue of his guilt or to reargue claims that could have been addressed at trial or on appeal.” (at 9)
Factual background
Carter was convicted of aggravated robbery arising from an incident at a Wal-Mart store. Evidence showed that a witness observed Carter place video games inside his clothing, confront him outside after he left without paying, and point a cocked gun at him; Carter then left with Jessica Brewer and sold the games at a resale shop. In his successive coram nobis petitions, Carter asserted Brady violations, false testimony, withheld statements, and challenges to the sufficiency and credibility of the trial evidence.
Procedural history
Carter was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Carter previously filed two petitions seeking permission to pursue coram nobis relief; both were denied. The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the third petition and declared his motion for leave to respond to the State's response moot.