Allen v. State
440 S.W.3d 329
Ark.2014Background
- In 1995 Deangelo (D’angelo) Allen was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Allen filed a Rule 37.1 petition postconviction which was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2006 Allen sought leave in this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court for a writ of error coram nobis alleging Brady-style suppression by the State regarding witness Tony McKenzie; that petition was denied.
- McKenzie was a key prosecution witness who testified that he drove with Allen and others, described a remark about a planned robbery, and reported observations (e.g., Allen sweating) that implicated Allen as an accomplice; Allen later produced an affidavit from McKenzie recanting parts of his trial statements.
- Allen’s instant (second) petition renews claims that police coached McKenzie and that McKenzie’s testimony contradicted co-defendant Earnest Phillips; the petition relies on the same McKenzie affidavit submitted in 2006.
- The State argued the petition is successive and an abuse of the writ; the court dismissed the petition for failing to present new facts or show withheld material that would have changed the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s renewed coram-nobis petition presents new grounds to reinvest jurisdiction | Allen contends police coached McKenzie and that McKenzie’s trial testimony was unreliable; relies on same affidavit | State argues petition repeats prior claims and offers no new facts; abuse of the writ | Denied — petition is successive and abusive because it reasserts the same claims without new facts |
| Whether the allegedly withheld/coached statements by McKenzie constitute a Brady violation | Allen argues McKenzie’s recantation shows the State suppressed material/exculpatory impeachment evidence that would have changed the verdict | State contends defense could cross-examine McKenzie, McKenzie did not claim another undisclosed statement existed, and other evidence implicated Allen | Denied — petitioner failed to show suppression of material evidence that would have produced a different outcome |
| Whether claims about witness credibility or sufficiency of evidence are cognizable in coram-nobis | Allen challenges witness credibility and sufficiency through recantation/affidavit | State says credibility and sufficiency are not grounds for coram-nobis; those issues belong to trial/direct appeal | Court held credibility/sufficiency challenges are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings and affirmed dismissal |
| Whether coram-nobis is available for these categories of errors | Allen seeks coram-nobis relief for alleged fundamental factual error extrinsic to record | State argues coram-nobis is narrow and reserved for compelling circumstances | Court reiterated coram-nobis is extraordinary, limited to narrow categories, and requires a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record; petitioner did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (per curiam) (coram-nobis is an extraordinary remedy usually denied)
- Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251 (per curiam) (strong presumption of validity for convictions; coram-nobis requires extrinsic fundamental fact)
- Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (per curiam) (burden on petitioner to demonstrate fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record)
- Wright v. State, 2014 Ark. 25 (per curiam) (coram-nobis available only for narrow categories of errors)
- Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (this court must grant permission before trial court may entertain coram-nobis after an affirmed judgment)
- Allen v. State, 324 Ark. 1, 918 S.W.2d 699 (1996) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression by prosecution of favorable material violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (defines Brady materiality and elements of a Brady violation)