Johnson v. State
2015 Ark. 170
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Kedron Johnson was convicted by jury of rape in 2001 and sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment.
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (Johnson v. State, 80 Ark. App. 79, 94 S.W.3d 344 (2002)).
- In 2008, Johnson sought leave to proceed in trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis; petition denied.
- In 2015, Johnson filed a petition again to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider coram-nobis relief.
- Petition seeks to obtain evidence allegedly withheld by the State in breach of Brady v. Maryland (recording of interrogation).
- The court held that coram-nobis relief is extraordinary and limited to specific categories; petitioner bears burden to show a fundamental extrinsic error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram-nobis petition allowed to reinvest jurisdiction to consider Brady claim. | Johnson seeks coram-nobis review to obtain exculpatory recording. | Respondent contends coram-nobis requires permission from this court and limits claims. | Denied; coram-nobis available only under compelling circumstances and Johnson failed to show Brady-type prejudice. |
| Whether Johnson established a Brady violation and withholding of exculpatory evidence. | Recording would prove transcript inaccurate and exonerate or impeach witnesses. | No proof of multiple tapes or transcript alteration; insufficient substantiation of withholding. | Not established; mere allegations without proof do not meet Brady threshold. |
| Whether other claims (trial error, ineffective assistance, sufficiency) are cognizable in coram-nobis. | Claims of errors and ineffective assistance should be reviewable in coram-nobis. | Such claims are outside coram-nobis; proper avenues are direct appeal or postconviction Rule 37.1. | Cognizable claims rejected; not within coram-nobis proper scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (three Brady elements and prejudice standard cited)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (prejudice inquiry for Brady violations)
- Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580 (Ark. 2000) (Brady violation standard in Arkansas post-conviction context)
- Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635 (Ark. 2001) (permission required to proceed in trial court after direct conviction on coram-nobis)
- McDaniels v. State, 2012 Ark. 465 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis available only under extraordinary circumstances)
- Charland v. State, 2013 Ark. 452 (Ark. 2013) (recognizes scope of writ to address fundamental errors)
- Wright v. State, 2014 Ark. 25 (Ark. 2014) (burden to show fundamental extrinsic error)
- Slocum v. State, 2014 Ark. 491 (Ark. 2014) (claims must be substantiated; coram-nobis not a vehicle for unsubstantiated Brady claims)
- Maxwell v. State, 2009 Ark. 309 (Ark. 2009) (full disclosure of specific facts required in coram-nobis petitions)
- Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 (Ark. 2013) (coram-nobis presumption of validity of judgment)