Fudge v. State
463 S.W.3d 292
Ark.2015Background
- In 1999, Fudge was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Pulaski County.
- This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 2000.
- In 2005, the trial court granted a new sentencing hearing based on trial counsel’s failure to object to certain aggravating evidence, which this Court affirmed in 2005.
- At resentencing in 2006, Fudge received life imprisonment without parole.
- In 2010, Fudge filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis; the Court denied relief.
- Fudge filed a second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in 2015, arguing Brady and related grounds; the Court again denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to reinvest jurisdiction to consider coram nobis petition | Fudge contends jurisdiction should be reinvested to pursue coram nobis relief. | State argues petition is conclusory and lacks substantiation for a ground to grant the writ. | Denied; no meritorious basis shown. |
| Whether there was a Brady violation from withheld evidence | Fudge asserts exculpatory/impeachment evidence was hidden by State. | State contends no factual substantiation of a Brady violation was provided. | Denied; no showing of material, prejudicial, withheld evidence. |
| Whether coram-nobis petitions may raise ineffective assistance, trial errors, or insufficient evidence claims | Fudge includes these grounds as part of the coram nobis petition. | These claims are not proper grounds for coram-nobis relief. | Denied; such claims are not within coram-nobis scope. |
| Whether alleged evidentiary concealment must be substantiated with specific facts | Fudge relies on broad assertions of concealed evidence. | Coram-nobis petitions require full disclosure of specific facts; conclusory claims are insufficient. | Denied; failure to provide substantiated facts to show Brady materiality and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- McFerrin v. State, 2012 Ark. 305 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis burden and requirements)
- Cloird v. State, 2011 Ark. 303 (Ark. 2011) (coram-nobis procedural requirements)
- Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (Ark. 2011) (burden to show fundamental error extrinsic to record)
- Slocum v. State, 2014 Ark. 398 (Ark. 2014) (considering trial-court petition in coram-nobis context)
- Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2003) (merits-based permission to grant coram-nobis relief)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (three elements of Brady claims: favorable evidence, suppression, prejudice)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (standard for impact of undisclosed evidence on trial outcome)
- Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580 (Ark. 1999) (per curiam Brady considerations)
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (scope and availability of coram-nobis)
- Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis context and rarity)
- Fudge v. State, 2010 Ark. 426 (Ark. 2010) (absence of Brady violation in prior petition)
- Maxwell v. State, 2009 Ark. 309 (Ark. 2009) (coram-nobis petition substantiation requirements)