Bond v. State
477 S.W.3d 508
Ark.2015Background
- Kelton Bond was convicted in 2008 of multiple drug offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 115 years; Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed and a subsequent Rule 37.1 petition was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- Bond filed a pro se petition asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction to allow him to pursue a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.
- Bond alleges Brady violations and that the State used perjured testimony, fabricated/planted evidence, and acted beyond the scope of a search warrant; he claims the prosecutor colluded with officers to conceal this evidence.
- Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available only for fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record and only under compelling circumstances (limited to certain categories, e.g., suppressed material evidence).
- The Court reviewed Bond’s proposed coram-nobis petition (filed with the leave petition) for sufficiency of factual allegations and probability of truth.
- The Court denied leave, holding Bond’s allegations are conclusory, lack specific factual support showing suppressed favorable evidence, and often amount to impermissible challenges to sufficiency or witness credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bond established a Brady violation by use of perjured/fabricated evidence | Bond: investigators planted evidence and lied at trial; State withheld impeachment/exculpatory evidence | State: no specific facts show suppression; record does not support fabrication claim | Denied — allegations are conclusory, lack factual support of suppressed material evidence; coram-nobis not warranted |
| Whether undisclosed searches/exceeding a warrant supports coram-nobis | Bond: State exceeded warrant scope and hid that fact, so claim couldn’t be raised at trial | State: petitioner fails to show withheld information or specific facts of misconduct | Denied — petitioner did not establish concealed information with facts |
| Whether prosecutor colluded with officers to present false testimony | Bond: prosecutor worked with officers to give false testimony and conceal evidence | State: assertions are conclusory; inconsistencies do not prove collusion | Denied — conclusory allegations insufficient for coram-nobis |
| Whether inconsistent or ambiguous trial evidence supports coram-nobis relief | Bond: inconsistencies show evidence was false and judgment unreliable | State: issues about sufficiency/credibility belong to trial record, not coram-nobis | Denied — recantation/credibility/sufficiency claims are not grounds for coram-nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady rule: suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (three-element Brady framework and "reasonable probability" standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls within Brady rule)
- Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177 (Brady claims in coram-nobis context; petitioner burden)
- Barnett v. State, 2015 Ark. 190 (onus on petitioner to establish concealed evidence with facts)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (coram-nobis application must disclose specific facts, not conclusions)
- Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767 (writ not available based solely on witness recantation or false testimony allegation)