Grady v. State
2017 Ark. 245
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Christopher Grady was convicted by a jury in 2013 of unlawful use of a communication device and delivery of a controlled substance; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Grady filed a petition in the Arkansas Supreme Court asking that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court so he could pursue a writ of error coram nobis (post‑appeal coram nobis requires this Court’s permission).
- Grady’s coram nobis claim alleges a Brady violation: that the State had a pre‑existing plea agreement with witness DeAngelo Denton (a DEA informant) that was concealed at trial and would have impeached Denton’s testimony.
- The alleged agreement purportedly reduced Denton’s exposure on burglary charges in exchange for his work as an informant; Grady claims he learned of it only in 2014.
- The trial record included DEA agent testimony and recorded/ video evidence of controlled buys with Denton; Denton testified about his felon status, prior drug use, informant role, and that he had no charges pending at trial.
- The Supreme Court denied Grady’s petition because he failed to plead sufficient specific facts showing a Brady violation or that the alleged suppressed evidence was material such that the conviction would likely have been prevented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Supreme Court should reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis | Grady: reinvest so trial court can hear coram nobis alleging Brady suppression of a plea agreement with Denton | State: petition fails to allege sufficient, specific facts showing a coram nobis ground | Denied — petition fails to state a ground for coram nobis; jurisdiction not reinvested |
| Whether alleged undisclosed plea agreement with witness constitutes Brady suppression | Grady: agreement would impeach Denton and likely change verdict because Denton’s testimony was critical and recordings were poor quality | State: record shows agent testimony, recordings, video, and Denton’s criminal history were before jury; no factual support that agreement existed or was concealed | Denied — petitioner did not substantiate that an agreement existed or was suppressed; no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether the allegedly weak evidence supports coram nobis relief | Grady: evidence was weak and relied heavily on Denton’s testimony | State: witness credibility and sufficiency are for trial/direct appeal; coram nobis is not for reweighing credibility or sufficiency | Denied — insufficiency/credibility challenges are not grounds for coram nobis |
| Whether ancillary motions (counsel, in forma pauperis, discovery) should be granted | Grady: requests appointment of counsel, IFP status, and pre‑hearing discovery to develop coram nobis claim | State: moot if petition fails on its merits | Moot — motions rendered moot by denial of petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality: reasonable probability the result would differ)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (consider cumulative effect of suppressed evidence)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (post‑appeal coram nobis requires Supreme Court permission)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (limits on coram nobis relief; categories of cognizable errors)
- Isom v. State, 462 S.W.3d 662 (Ark. 2015) (Brady suppression can be a coram nobis ground)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. 2016) (strong presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis proceedings)