Henington v. State
2017 Ark. 211
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Danny Henington was convicted by a jury in 2009 of rape of a child and sentenced to 432 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Henington filed and lost a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition; this court affirmed that denial.
- In December 2016 Henington filed a pro se petition in this Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis.
- Coram nobis in Arkansas is an extraordinary remedy available only upon our permission after direct-appeal affirmance and is limited to very narrow, fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record.
- Henington asserted (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) trial-court evidentiary errors, (3) prosecutorial misconduct for withholding exculpatory documentation, (4) insufficient evidence, and (5) judicial bias.
- The Court denied the petition, holding the asserted grounds do not fit coram nobis criteria and many claims were improper for coram nobis or were previously available on direct appeal or under Rule 37.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court should reinvest jurisdiction to allow a coram nobis petition | Henington asked permission to file coram nobis raising multiple errors | State argued coram nobis is extraordinary, limited, and requires specific extrinsic facts | Denied — petitioner failed to show requisite extrinsic, fundamental facts; permission not warranted |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel is a proper coram nobis ground | Henington said counsel was ineffective at trial | State said ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37.1 postconviction proceedings | Denied — ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram nobis; use Rule 37.1 |
| Whether prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence supports coram nobis | Henington claimed the State withheld documentation proving innocence | State argued no showing of a concealed fact extrinsic to the record that was undisclosed | Denied — allegations could have been raised at trial/direct appeal; petitioner failed to plead specific extrinsic facts |
| Whether evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, or judicial bias justify coram nobis | Henington challenged admissibility rulings, sufficiency, and alleged bias | State contended trial-error and sufficiency claims are for trial and direct appeal; mere appearance of impropriety is insufficient to show actual bias | Denied — trial errors and sufficiency issues are not grounds for coram nobis; no showing of actual judicial bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to pursue coram nobis after appeal)
- State v. Larimore, 17 S.W.3d 87 (Ark. 2000) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. 2016) (strong presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis review)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (enumeration of four categories appropriate for coram nobis relief)
- Mason v. State, 436 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2014) (ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37.1 proceedings)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (petitioner must demonstrate fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record)
- Ventress v. State, 461 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2015) (coram nobis is not a vehicle to relitigate direct-appeal issues)
- Chatmon v. State, 473 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. 2015) (prosecutorial-misconduct claims that could be raised at trial are not coram nobis grounds)