Carter v. State
2015 Ark. 397
Ark.2015Background
- Edward Carter was convicted by a jury in 2008 of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 360 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
- Trial evidence: Carter and Jessica Brewer left a Wal‑Mart with video games; a shopper, Salli Reding, followed and confronted Carter, who displayed a gun; Carter later sold the games at a resale shop.
- On direct appeal Carter argued insufficient proof of theft and thus no aggravated robbery; appeals court found sufficient evidence and that aggravated robbery could be established by threatened force.
- Carter filed a pro se petition asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis, and he moved to amend that petition.
- Carter’s coram‑nobis claims primarily allege a Brady violation (the State withheld material/impeachment evidence regarding Reding and her statements) and challenge the sufficiency and nature of the evidence (e.g., whether Carter intended to take property, whether the gun was real).
- The Supreme Court treated the motion as an amended petition and denied the request to reinvest jurisdiction, concluding Carter’s claims were largely challenges to trial‑record sufficiency or unsupported allegations, not proper coram‑nobis Brady claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave should be granted to pursue coram‑nobis based on an alleged Brady violation | Carter: prosecution withheld material/impeachment evidence about Reding (e.g., her role, coaching, and statements), which would have affected the outcome | State: Carter offers no facts showing material evidence was suppressed; claims are sufficiency or trial‑error arguments, not Brady | Denied — Carter failed to allege specific facts showing material evidence was withheld; bare conclusions insufficient |
| Whether coram‑nobis can be used to challenge sufficiency of the evidence or false testimony at trial | Carter: argues trial evidence was insufficient and witnesses perjured, undermining robbery conviction | State: sufficiency and trial‑error claims must be raised at trial/direct appeal and are not cognizable in coram‑nobis | Denied — sufficiency and trial‑error claims are outside coram‑nobis scope |
| Whether the allegedly fake or BB gun undermines aggravated robbery conviction | Carter: questions whether aggravated robbery can stand if the gun was not real | State: aggravated robbery is proved if defendant represents by word or conduct that he is armed; a BB gun that appears real suffices | Denied — representation of being armed satisfies statute regardless of whether the weapon was real |
| Whether petitioner met burden to show a fundamental extrinsic factual error to warrant coram‑nobis | Carter: alleges multiple fundamental factual errors and prosecutorial misconduct | State: petitioner must present specific facts showing extrinsic error; Carter presented only conclusions and challenges cognizable on direct appeal | Denied — burden not met; no showing of extrinsic, material fact that would have prevented conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material favorable evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements and materiality standard for Brady claims)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable‑probability standard for undisclosed impeachment evidence)
- State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (2000) (coram‑nobis is an extraordinary, rarely granted remedy)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark.) (trial court may entertain coram‑nobis only after Supreme Court grants permission)
- Isom v. State, 462 S.W.3d 662 (Ark.) (petitioner must show extrinsic fundamental error and reasonable probability of different result)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark.) (limits on coram‑nobis relief; need specific facts in petition)
- Cloird v. State, 182 S.W.3d 477 (Ark.) (bare allegations insufficient for coram‑nobis)