Hutchinson v. State
2017 Ark. 55
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Dennis Hutchinson was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to an aggregate 540 months’ imprisonment; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Hutchinson filed a pro se application in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking leave to proceed in the trial court on a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and separately moved for appointment of counsel.
- Hutchinson contended he was incompetent at trial due to PTSD from military service, prior VA treatment, flashbacks, paranoia, methamphetamine use, depression, suicidal ideation, and placement in the jail medical ward.
- Trial and sentencing records showed mitigation evidence of PTSD and a VA disability determination; Hutchinson did not request a competency evaluation or raise incompetence at trial.
- The petition alleged facts known (or knowable) at trial and was filed six years after the appellate affirmance; Hutchinson’s allegations were largely conclusory and lacked new extrinsic facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is available for claimed incompetence at trial | Hutchinson: He was incompetent at trial due to PTSD and related symptoms, which were exacerbated by methamphetamine use, and this incompetence was not recognized at trial | State: The record shows awareness of PTSD; no new extrinsic fact shown; petitioner failed to raise competence or seek evaluation at trial and delayed filing | Denied — petitioner failed to show a previously unknown, extrinsic, fundamental factual error (insanity/incompetence) that would justify coram nobis relief |
| Whether petitioner exercised due diligence in bringing coram nobis claim | Hutchinson: Implied that later discovery of the extent of impairment justified delay | State: Hutchinson knew (or could have known) of the facts at trial and waited six years after appellate affirmance | Denied — petitioner did not act with due diligence; knew facts at trial and delayed filing |
| Whether conclusory allegations suffice to require a hearing | Hutchinson: Allegations of PTSD and related symptoms establish incompetence warranting inquiry | State: Allegations are conclusory and insufficient to overcome presumption of competency or to trigger a competency hearing | Denied — conclusory allegations insufficient; no reasonable doubt shown to require sua sponte competency hearing |
| Appointment of counsel for coram nobis proceeding | Hutchinson: Requested appointment of counsel to pursue coram nobis petition | State: If petition is denied, counsel request is moot | Denied/moot — petition denied, so counsel request is moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (permission required to file coram nobis in trial court after appellate affirmance)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (function and narrow availability of coram nobis)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (coram nobis is extraordinary and judgments carry strong presumption of validity)
- Noble v. State, 462 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2015) (burden on petitioner claiming mental illness to overcome presumption of validity)
- Echols v. State, 125 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. 2003) (due diligence requirement for coram nobis relief)