Grant v. State
469 S.W.3d 356
Ark.2015Background
- In 2003 Abraham Grant was convicted by a jury of capital murder and first-degree battery; aggregate sentence: life without parole; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Grant has repeatedly sought postconviction relief and permission to file writs of error coram nobis: petitions in 2007, 2010, 2014, and Feb. 2015 were denied or dismissed.
- On July 10, 2015, Grant filed a fourth petition asking this Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so he could pursue a coram-nobis petition; he also requested a free copy of the petition under the FOIA.
- Grant's coram-nobis arguments attack pretrial rulings, trial evidentiary rulings (including admission of a dying declaration), alleged discovery/Brady violations about an investigative report and the identity of the officer who heard the dying declaration.
- The court explained coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy limited to fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record (e.g., insanity at trial, coerced plea, suppressed material evidence, third-party confession) and requires permission to reinvest jurisdiction after direct appeal.
- The court found Grant offered no new or factually supported grounds: his challenges were trial/appeal issues or repetitive Brady/discovery claims previously raised, and he did not show suppressed evidence or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reinvest jurisdiction to consider coram nobis | Grant argues trial errors, evidentiary rulings, and withheld investigative report justify coram nobis review | State argues coram nobis is extraordinary, limited, and Grant's claims are trial/appeal issues or repetitive and unsupported | Denied — petition dismissed as meritless/abusive of the writ and not presenting new, extrinsic facts |
| Whether the victim’s statement was a dying declaration or misattributed | Grant contends the victim did not make the dying declaration to Officer Lovell; suggests another officer was the source | State relies on trial finding and direct-appeal affirmance that statement qualified as dying declaration | Denied — issue was litigated at trial and on appeal; coram nobis not for reargument of issues known at trial/appeal |
| Whether the State withheld an investigative report (Brady claim) | Grant alleges police report identifying the true officer was withheld, depriving confrontation and impeachment evidence | State argues Grant provided no factual support that report existed or was withheld and no prejudice shown | Denied — no factual allegations establishing suppression, materiality, or reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether petitioner is entitled to a copy of his petition at public expense under FOIA | Grant requested a free copy of his petition at public expense | State (court) notes FOIA does not require courts to provide photocopying at public expense; copies will be mailed upon payment | Denied — request for free copy denied; copy will be mailed if fee paid |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (affirming conviction and prior appellate rulings)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to file coram nobis after appeal)
- State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy; presumption of validity)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of different result if disclosed)