Burton v. State, 2014 Ark. 44

In 2008 a jury convicted Robert Burton of aggravated robbery and burglary after witnesses Cummings and Newell identified Burton as the person who held a gun while others took money; Herrera did not identify Burton at trial and said she did not see the third person.
Burton was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and after a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition.
Burton sought leave from the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis raising alleged newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance claims.
Burton’s newly asserted evidence included: (1) Herrera’s attempted extortion of co-defendant Canady; (2) testimony from Canady’s trial that Herrera was unsure as to identification; and (3) a tape recording of Herrera with statements inconsistent with her trial testimony and prior police statements.
Burton also asserted a Brady claim that the recording was withheld by the prosecutor and argued the initial investigation rested on hearsay implicating him.
The Supreme Court denied Burton’s petition, concluding his claims were either outside coram nobis relief, were not extrinsic to the record, or otherwise did not meet coram nobis standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis may be used for alleged ineffective assistance of counsel	Burton: counsel failed to investigate pretrial leads that would have shown IDs were fabricated/distorted	State: ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings	Denied — ineffective-assistance claims are outside coram-nobis scope
Whether newly discovered impeachment evidence (Herrera’s conduct and statements) warrants coram nobis relief	Burton: extortion evidence, Canady-trial testimony, and a recording impeach Herrera and undermine identifications	State: same evidence was available/raised earlier and was before the trial court	Denied — evidence was not extrinsic to the record and already addressed on motion for new trial
Whether the prosecutor suppressed the Herrera recording in violation of Brady	Burton: recording was favorable and was withheld	State: Burton was aware of the recording when he filed his motion for new trial, so suppression element fails	Denied — no suppression under Brady because Burton knew of the recording
Whether investigatory hearsay that led to Burton’s identification merits coram nobis relief	Burton: initial tip (Canady’s mother to Herrera) shows identification was based on hearsay	State: that testimony was part of the record and was presented at the new-trial hearing	Denied — the hearsay was part of the record and therefore not a proper coram-nobis ground

Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (Ark. 1999) (describing categories of errors cognizable in coram-nobis)
Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1984) (presumption of validity for convictions and coram-nobis framework)
Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (Ark. 1975) (coram-nobis principles and burden on petitioner)
Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis relief is rare and disfavored)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (three-part test for prosecution suppression of favorable evidence)