Grant v. State, 484 S.W.3d 272

In 2003 Abraham Grant was convicted of capital murder (death of Rosetta Pittman) and first-degree battery (wounding of Louise Perry); aggregate sentence: life without parole; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Grant pursued multiple postconviction remedies: a 2007 postconviction petition (denied and appeal dismissed) and five petitions to reinvest jurisdiction for writs of error coram nobis between 2010 and 2015 (all denied or dismissed as abusive).
In his fifth petition (filed Dec. 29, 2015) Grant alleged the State withheld impeachment/exculpatory information about witness Louise Perry and that ballistics on recovered bullets failed to link him to the shootings.
Grant asserted Perry’s accusation was coerced by police and that nondisclosure of that coercion violated due process (Brady-type claim); he also argued insufficiency of evidence based on ballistics.
The court treated the filing as a request for permission to reinvest jurisdiction so Grant could pursue coram-nobis relief and evaluated whether his allegations met the stringent coram-nobis and Brady standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grant alleged facts supporting a coram-nobis writ	Grant: State withheld impeachment evidence showing Perry was coerced, undermining conviction	State: Perry testified at trial and was cross-examined; allegations are conclusory and concern credibility/sufficiency, not coram-nobis grounds	Denied — allegations insufficient for coram-nobis; credibility/sufficiency not cognizable
Whether alleged suppression of impeachment evidence states a Brady claim	Grant: Withheld evidence was favorable/impeaching and material; would have changed outcome	State: No factual showing that evidence was concealed; defense could have explored statements at trial	Denied — petitioner failed to plead factual support for suppressed evidence element of Brady
Whether evidence/ballistics insufficiency supports coram-nobis relief	Grant: Ballistics did not tie him to crime, so evidence insufficient	State: Sufficiency and witness credibility are trial issues, not coram-nobis grounds	Denied — sufficiency/credibility claims not cognizable in coram-nobis
Whether Grant acted with due diligence in raising claim	Grant: (no adequate explanation for delay shown)	State: Multiple prior petitions; long delay and lack of explanation show lack of diligence	Denied — petitioner failed to show due diligence; petition untimely

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court) (sets three-element Brady test and "reasonable probability" standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady rule)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court) (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (Ark. 2000) (coram-nobis is an extraordinary remedy; strong presumption of validity of convictions)
Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446 (Ark.) (coram-nobis requires particularized factual allegations; court need not accept conclusory claims)
Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (Ark.) (application for coram-nobis must disclose specific facts, not mere conclusions)