Demeyer v. State
2013 Ark. 456
Ark.2013Background
- In 2009, Kirk Demeyer pled guilty to rape (charged on four counts) in Baxter County and received an aggregate 480‑month sentence following a negotiated plea.
- In 2012, Demeyer filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging his plea was coerced and that the prosecution withheld a videotaped interview with the victim (Brady claim).
- The circuit court held a hearing, heard testimony from Demeyer and his trial counsel, and denied the coram nobis petition.
- Demeyer appealed the denial and filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file his brief in this Court.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded Demeyer could not prevail on appeal and dismissed the appeal as meritless, rendering the extension motion moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Demeyer’s guilty plea was coerced | Demeyer: counsel and prosecutors threatened multiple life sentences/habitual‑offender exposure, rendering plea involuntary | State/circuit court: counsel accurately advised Demeyer of possible outcomes and negotiated a term‑of‑years plea; no specific mistreatment shown | No coercion shown; coram nobis not warranted |
| Whether prosecution suppressed a videotaped victim interview (Brady) | Demeyer: prosecution withheld videotape that was favorable/impeaching | Counsel testified he received the videotape in discovery and was aware of it; Demeyer admitted counsel knew of it | No suppression shown; Brady element not satisfied; coram nobis denied |
| Whether appeal should proceed / extension motion | Demeyer sought more time to file brief | State argued appeal fails on the merits; extension unnecessary if appeal cannot succeed | Appeal dismissed as appellant could not prevail; extension motion moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (Ark. 1999) (identifies categories of errors coram nobis may address)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1984) (coram‑nobis presumption that conviction is valid)
- Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (Ark. 1975) (discussing validity presumption and coram‑nobis function)