Hooper v. State
2014 Ark. 16
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Danny Lee Hooper was convicted by a jury in 2005 of multiple felonies (rape, kidnapping, robbery, residential burglary, third-degree battery) and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate of 1,320 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Hooper filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition, which was denied; an appeal was dismissed as without merit.
- Hooper then filed a pro se petition and amended petition asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so he could pursue a writ of error coram nobis; he also moved for appointment of counsel and a psychiatrist.
- The Supreme Court treated the filings as a request for permission to proceed in the trial court (required when a judgment has been affirmed on appeal) and evaluated whether coram-nobis relief was warranted.
- Hooper alleged: (1) incompetence/insanity at trial related to a prior gunshot head injury and ineffective assistance for failing to present an insanity defense; (2) illegally obtained DNA evidence and alleged prosecution suppression; and (3) that his multiple convictions arose from a single episode and should not have been prosecuted separately.
- The Supreme Court denied the petitions and found the appointment motions moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence/insanity at trial | Hooper: prior gunshot head injury caused incompetence; counsel failed to present insanity defense | State: pretrial psychiatric exam found Hooper competent; no extrinsic factual error shown | Denied — petitioner failed to overcome presumption of valid conviction; no showing records would change psychiatrist's opinion |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Hooper: counsel was ineffective for not presenting insanity evidence/medical records | State: ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis | Denied — IAC is outside coram-nobis relief |
| Illegally obtained/suppressed DNA | Hooper: DNA sample was illegally obtained and/or withheld by prosecution | State: defense knew DNA was taken; suppression/collection issues are trial errors that could have been raised at trial | Denied — trial-error/suppression claims are not grounds for coram-nobis |
| Multiplicity / double jeopardy | Hooper: multiple convictions arose from one episode and should have been charged as a single offense | State: facts supporting separate charges were known at trial; multiplicity/double-jeopardy issues are trial-record issues | Denied — no extrinsic factual error; coram-nobis is not a substitute for issues not raised at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580 (1999) (describing the limited categories for coram-nobis relief)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (1984) (strong presumption that judgment of conviction is valid; coram-nobis function)
- Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644 (1975) (coram-nobis addresses facts extrinsic to the record that would have prevented rendition of judgment)