Bienemy v. State
2016 Ark. 312
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Joseph M. Bienemy was convicted by a jury as an accomplice to capital murder for the November 26, 2006 shooting of Carlos Deadmon and sentenced to life without parole.
- Evidence at trial tied Bienemy to a gray Jeep seen at the scene, Enterprise rental records showing Bienemy rented such a Jeep, surveillance footage placing him at a gas station the morning of the murder, and DNA from a plastic cigar mouthpiece matching Bienemy.
- Testimony established motive and opportunity: witnesses said Deadmon had stolen money from Bienemy and an associate; an eyewitness saw the shooter exit the passenger side of a gray Jeep.
- Bienemy’s direct appeal and a Rule 37.1 petition were denied and affirmed; he later filed a pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction to pursue a writ of error coram nobis or to recall the mandate.
- Bienemy relied on a 2009 supplemental Arkansas State Crime Lab report showing DNA from a second individual, Shedric Williams, on several recovered items; he argued this was Brady material that had been withheld and was exculpatory.
- The court found the Williams DNA was discovered after trial, did not show the State had suppressed known material favorable evidence, and that the new report was not material to negating Bienemy’s accomplice liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recall of the mandate is available | Bienemy asked recall of mandate to address alleged nondisclosure | State argued recall applies only to appellate error in death-penalty cases | Denied — recall not appropriate; remedy targets appellate errors in death-penalty cases |
| Whether leave should be granted to file coram-nobis in trial court | Bienemy argued new 2009 DNA report (Shedric Williams) is Brady material withheld by State and would have affected outcome | State argued DNA was discovered after trial, not known or withheld, and not material to conviction | Denied — coram-nobis requires newly discovered, material, withheld evidence; Bienemy failed to show suppression or materiality |
| Whether the 2009 DNA report is exculpatory/material under Brady | Bienemy: identification of Williams’ DNA on scene would have undermined his conviction as accomplice | State: report only confirms an accomplice existed and does not negate evidence tying Bienemy to the crime (his DNA on mouthpiece, rental records, surveillance, motive, lies) | Held not material/exculpatory — would not have changed outcome; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Whether coram-nobis standards are met (facts extrinsic, no fault of defendant) | Bienemy claimed the newly identified DNA is a fact extrinsic to record and not discoverable earlier through his fault | State maintained the identity was not known to the State prior to trial and even if new, it is not of the fundamental nature permitting coram-nobis relief | Denied — coram-nobis is rare, must show fundamental error of fact extrinsic to record; Bienemy failed to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Bienemy v. State, 374 Ark. 232 (Ark. 2008) (summarizing trial evidence and earlier appeal)
- Ward v. State, 2015 Ark. 61 (Ark. 2015) (motions to recall mandates apply to appellate errors in death-penalty cases)
- Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis is extraordinary; standards and categories for relief)
- Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 (Ark. 2013) (procedural requirement that this court grant permission before trial court can entertain coram-nobis after affirmed judgment)
- Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446 (Ark. 2004) (Brady requires showing material was available to State before trial and defense lacked it)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)