Charland v. State, 2013 Ark. 452

In 2009 a jury convicted Brian Charland of three counts of raping his seven‑year‑old daughter; he received an aggregate 900‑month sentence.
Trial evidence included an investigator’s testimony about the victim’s interview and Charland’s written and videotaped incriminating statements.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Charland later filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging his trial counsel was impaired by methamphetamine‑induced psychosis; the petition was denied and the denial affirmed.
Charland then sought this Court’s permission to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction so he could file a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging suppressed recorded statements of the victim (a Brady claim) and other unsubstantiated assertions (judicial bias; coerced confession).
The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied reinvestment, finding Charland failed to plead or demonstrate facts supporting a Brady violation or other fundamental error of the sort coram nobis remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reinvestment should be granted to pursue coram nobis based on alleged suppressed recorded victim statements	Charland: recordings exist showing inconsistent victim accounts; prosecution withheld them, violating Brady and prejudicing the verdict	State: petition lacks factual support for existence/suppression of recordings; bare allegations insufficient; petition also possibly untimely/lacks due diligence	Denied — petitioner failed to show factual basis for Brady claim or meritorious coram nobis attack
Whether coram nobis is appropriate remedy for alleged prosecutorial suppression	Charland: Brady suppression of material impeachment/exculpatory evidence warrants coram nobis	State: even if coram nobis can address Brady claims, petitioner did not meet burden to show suppressed material or prejudice	Denied — petitioner did not meet the heavy burden; coram nobis reserved for compelling, fundamental errors
Whether unsubstantiated claims (judicial bias; coerced confession) support coram nobis	Charland: trial judge biased; confession coerced due to fear of child removal	State: claims are conclusory and unsupported	Denied — unsubstantiated assertions insufficient for coram nobis
Whether petitioner exercised due diligence in bringing coram nobis	Charland: implicit/unclear; did not demonstrate diligence in petition	State: argues petition untimely for lack of due diligence	Court: did not decide due diligence because petition fails on merits

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory or impeaching evidence violates due process)
Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580 (1999) (coram nobis available for certain categories of fundamental error, including withheld material evidence)
Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (1984) (strong presumption of validity attaches to convictions in coram‑nobis proceedings)
Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644 (1975) (discussing standards and presumptions in postconviction relief)