Davis v. State
2017 Ark. 74
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Adam Davis, Jr., convicted of capital murder and attempted first-degree murder; sentence: life without parole plus 720 months. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 2009.
- Davis, a pro se prisoner, has filed multiple petitions seeking permission from the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so he can pursue a writ of error coram nobis.
- This is Davis’s third such petition; he reiterates two main claims: (1) police failed to seek medical attention for his wife after he shot her, contributing to her death, and (2) he was mentally deficient/incompetent to stand trial.
- He also raises a related claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present psychological mitigation evidence.
- The court evaluates whether Davis’s new petition presents additional, extrinsic facts sufficient to make a coram nobis attack appear meritorious and not an abuse of the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis on alleged withheld evidence (police failed to seek medical care) | Davis: withheld-evidence about police conduct shows factual basis for coram nobis | State: previous rulings and law treat Davis’s actions as concurrent proximate cause; withheld-evidence theory cannot overcome that | Denied — claim reiterates prior theory, no new facts; abuse of the writ |
| Whether alleged mental deficits render trial proceedings invalid (insanity/incompetence) | Davis: new or overlooked psychological facts/scoring errors show incompetence or diminished capacity | State: competency was evaluated at trial; no extrinsic facts shown to undermine that determination | Denied — Davis failed to present new, extrinsic facts sufficient to support coram nobis |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel for not presenting mitigation evidence supports coram nobis | Davis: counsel failed to introduce psychological mitigation, which would support relief | State: IAC and trial-error claims are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings | Denied — counsel-ineffectiveness claims are not cognizable in coram nobis |
| Whether repetitive petitions with minimal new facts should be allowed | Davis: seeks another opportunity with alleged additional facts (e.g., scoring error) | State: court has discretion to refuse repetitive petitions; must show probability of truth and meritorious attack | Denied — court exercises discretion to dismiss as abuse of writ; motion to file response moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. State, 460 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. 2015) (permission required to reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis)
- Davis v. State, 348 S.W.3d 553 (Ark. 2009) (affirming conviction)
- Isom v. State, 462 S.W.3d 662 (Ark. 2015) (standard for granting leave to proceed with coram nobis)
- Jefferson v. State, 276 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. 2008) (concurrent proximate cause and criminal liability analysis)
- Millsap v. State, 501 S.W.3d 381 (Ark. 2016) (challenges to competency findings not cognizable on coram nobis absent extrinsic facts)
- Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (insanity/incompetence claims require extrinsic facts unknown at sentencing)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (diligence and requirement to present new information bearing on competency)
- Oliver v. State, 483 S.W.3d 298 (Ark. 2016) (application for coram nobis must disclose specific facts supporting the writ)
- Ridgeway v. State, 389 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1965) (coram nobis corrects mistakes of fact, not law)