Henington v. State
2017 Ark. 111
| 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 on direct appeal.
- Henington’s Rule 37.1 postconviction petition was denied; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that denial.
- In December 2016 Henington filed a pro se petition in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis.
- Henington alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, trial-court errors (including improper admission of evidence), prosecutorial misconduct for withholding exculpatory documentation, insufficiency of the evidence, and judicial bias.
- The Supreme Court summarized the narrow, extraordinary nature of coram nobis relief and the petitioner’s burden to show a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.
- The Court concluded Henington’s claims either are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, were available on direct appeal or under Rule 37.1, or failed to show an extrinsic fundamental fact or actual judicial bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis after affirmed judgment | Henington asked this Court to reinvest jurisdiction so the trial court could hear a coram nobis petition | State: petitioner must obtain this Court’s permission; coram nobis is extraordinary and narrow | Permission denied; coram nobis is rare and requires this Court’s leave |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s failures at trial warranted coram nobis relief | State: ineffective-assistance claims are for Rule 37.1 postconviction relief, not coram nobis | Denied; ineffective-assistance is not a coram nobis ground |
| Trial-court evidentiary and other trial errors | Trial errors and evidentiary rulings deprived Henington of a fair trial | State: such errors were or could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal; not cognizable in coram nobis | Denied; trial errors are not proper coram nobis grounds |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / withheld evidence | State withheld documentation that would have shown innocence | State: alleged misconduct is not a showing of an extrinsic fact concealed from defense; such claims could have been raised at trial | Denied; allegations fail to show extrinsic concealed facts required for coram nobis |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain conviction | State: sufficiency challenges belong to trial and direct appeal review | Denied; sufficiency not cognizable in coram nobis |
| Judicial bias | Trial court was biased and that affected outcome | State: appearance of impropriety insufficient; must show actual bias with reasonable probability of different outcome | Denied; allegations show disagreement with rulings, not actual bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to pursue coram nobis after affirmed judgment)
- Larimore v. State, 17 S.W.3d 87 (Ark. 2000) (coram nobis is an extraordinary, narrowly available remedy)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. 2016) (strong presumption that convictions are valid in coram nobis proceedings)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (burden to show fundamental fact extrinsic to the record)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (enumeration of limited categories for coram nobis relief)
- Mason v. State, 436 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2014) (ineffective-assistance claims are to be raised under Rule 37.1)
- Chatmon v. State, 473 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. 2015) (prosecutorial-misconduct allegations that could have been raised at trial do not support coram nobis)