Carter v. State
2016 Ark. 378
Ark.2016Background
- Edward Carter was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery in 2008 and sentenced to 360 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
- Carter filed two pro se petitions seeking permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis; both petitions were denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- At trial witnesses testified Carter took video games from Wal‑Mart, was confronted by a customer (Reding), and displayed/pointed a gun; Carter sold the games afterward.
- Carter contends Brady violations and newly discovered evidence from FOIA production: different gun photos, no fingerprints on the gun, no video of theft, and withheld narratives supporting a defective arrest warrant.
- The court treated most of Carter’s claims as challenges to sufficiency of the evidence or trial error (not cognizable in coram nobis) and found Carter failed to show any specific, material Brady suppression or a reasonable probability of a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permission should be granted to pursue coram nobis based on alleged Brady violations and newly discovered evidence | Brady and FOIA material show the State withheld exculpatory/impeaching evidence that would have changed the outcome | Carter’s claims largely attack trial‑record sufficiency or are conclusory; no specific suppressed material shown or reasonable probability of different result | Denied — Carter failed to allege specific suppressed material or show reasonable probability the outcome would differ; many claims are impermissible sufficiency/trial‑error attacks |
| Whether newly discovered evidence alone can support coram nobis relief | Newly discovered FOIA evidence (photos, lack of fingerprints, narratives) warrants reopening because it undermines probable cause and guilt | Newly discovered evidence, without showing it likely would have altered the verdict, is not a basis for coram nobis; defects in warrant could have been raised at trial | Denied — newly discovered evidence alone insufficient; petitioner did not show reasonable probability it would have prevented the conviction |
| Whether alleged defects in the arrest warrant constitute facts extrinsic to the record for coram nobis | FOIA materials show the warrant lacked probable cause and was obtained via fabricated affidavit | Warrant defects are trial‑record issues that could have been litigated; not shown to be concealed or outcome‑determinative | Denied — warrant defects do not establish extrinsic fact concealed from defense; issues were available to raise earlier |
| Whether impeachment/exculpatory evidence was suppressed under Brady | The State suppressed narratives and other materials favorable to defense | Carter offers only conclusory statements and no particularized showing of suppression or materiality | Denied — no factual substantiation of suppression and no showing of materiality or prejudice required by Brady/Strickler |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (sets three‑part Brady framework and materiality standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady rule)
- Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397 (Ark. 2000) (coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy)
- Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 374 (Ark. 1990) (newly discovered evidence alone is not a basis for coram nobis)
- Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635 (Ark. 2001) (newly discovered evidence must show reasonable probability of preventing conviction for coram nobis relief)
- Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446 (Ark. 2004) (applicant must fully disclose specific facts relied on in coram nobis application)