Cherry v. State
2014 Ark. 81
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 1989 Cherry was convicted of first-degree murder and habitual-offender life imprisonment in Sharp County.
- Appeal affirmed in Cherry v. State, 302 Ark. 462, 791 S.W.2d 354 (1990).
- Cherry petitioned pro se to reinvest jurisdiction in circuit court for a writ of error coram nobis.
- Writ of error coram nobis is rare and requires compelling, extrinsic-fact errors.
- Petition argued Brady violation: suppression of Missouri charges that were later dismissed.
- Court denied petition due to lack of due diligence and failure to show Brady-eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis relief | Cherry | Cherry | Denied; coram-nobis available only with compelling fundamental errors. |
| Brady claim sufficiency | Missouri dismissals were favorable; suppression occurred | No demonstrated State knowledge or suppression; not shown | Not shown; no Brady violation established. |
| Due diligence requirement | Efforts were reasonable given late discovery | Nearly 23-year delay shows lack of due diligence | Denied; petition untimely due to lack of due diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (writ often denied; rare remedy)
- Sparks v. State, 2012 Ark. 464 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; jurisdiction reinvestment discussed)
- Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; standards for coram nobis)
- Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539 (Ark. 2009) (requires compelling grounds for relief)
- Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251 (Ark. 2013) (identified four coram-nobis categories)
- Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (Ark. 2011) (extrinsic-factor burden for fundamental error)
- McClure v. State, 2013 Ark. 306 (Ark. 2013) (due diligence in coram-nobis applications)
- Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 (Ark. 2013) (timeliness and diligence considerations)
- McDaniels v. State, 2012 Ark. 465 (Ark. 2012) (writ available for fundamental errors)