Clemmons v. State
2017 Ark. 75
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Clemmons was convicted of multiple counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle for shooting at his ex-girlfriend’s home; one shot severely injured a child. He received a total 864‑month sentence including a 96‑month firearm enhancement.
- Trial evidence: four shell casings at the scene; eyewitness description of a dark/tinted car leaving; a shell casing recovered from Clemmons’s Honda; ballistics linking the casings and live ammunition in his garage to the weapon used.
- On direct appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding consent to search Clemmons’s car and premises voluntary.
- Clemmons filed a pro se application asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so he could pursue a writ of error coram nobis, alleging officer/perjured testimony, withheld Brady material, invalid consent, and speedy‑trial violation.
- The Supreme Court reviewed coram nobis standards: remedy is rare; relief requires a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record and falls within limited categories (insanity at trial, coerced plea, withheld material evidence, third‑party confession).
Issues
| Issue | Clemmons’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of coram nobis application / reinvest jurisdiction | Reinvest trial court so coram nobis can address alleged false testimony, Brady violations, and search issues | Coram nobis is extraordinary; petitioner must plead specific, extrinsic, material facts meeting narrow categories | Denied — allegations are conclusory and fail to meet coram nobis threshold |
| Alleged perjured/false testimony by officers (credibility / sufficiency) | Officer Brewer lied about shell casing and warm hood; testimony was fabricated | Credibility/ sufficiency challenges are trial issues and not cognizable in coram nobis | Denied — witness credibility and sufficiency are not grounds for coram nobis |
| Brady / prosecutorial nondisclosure | Prosecutor and investigators withheld favorable evidence and knowingly used perjured testimony | Allegations unsupported and lack identification of specific withheld, material evidence | Denied — petitioner failed to show material, prejudicial withholding sufficient to meet Brady/Strickler standard |
| Speedy‑trial claim and trial‑error allegations | Trial occurred two years after arrest; speedy‑trial violation | Speedy‑trial and other trial‑error claims should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, not in coram nobis | Denied — speedy‑trial and other trial errors are not cognizable in coram nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (explaining coram nobis standards and narrow availability)
- Ventress v. State, 461 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2015) (petition must disclose specific facts and show materiality for withheld evidence claims)
- Evans v. State, 501 S.W.3d 819 (Ark. 2016) (allegation of false testimony does not alone justify coram nobis)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (standard for materiality and prejudice in nondisclosure claims)