Lukach v. State
2014 Ark. 451
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 1991 Lukach was charged with three counts of rape and one count of burglary; the counts were severed for trial.
- In the first trial Lukach was convicted of two rapes and sentenced to two concurrent life terms, affirmed on appeal.
- In the second trial Lukach was convicted of rape and burglary and sentenced to life imprisonment and 20 years, affirmed on appeal.
- Lukach filed pro se petitions to reinvest jurisdiction for a writ of error coram nobis, plus motions for counsel and a hearing.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court held postconviction matters are civil and generally do not guarantee counsel; the petition was denied for lack of cognizable claims.
- The court concluded the petition to reinvest jurisdiction failed on merits and the related certiorari petition similarly lacked grounds; the accompanying moot motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition to reinvest jurisdiction is permissible | Lukach seeks coram nobis relief in circuit court. | Relief requires leave from this Court; writs are extraordinary. | Not permissible without this Court's leave. |
| Whether a writ of error coram nobis can be used for trial errors | Errors at trial warrant coram nobis relief. | Coram nobis only addresses four narrow categories. | Not available for general trial errors; falls outside four categories. |
| Whether venue/jurisdiction issues can be relitigated via coram nobis | Jurisdiction/venue concerns invalidate underlying convictions. | Issues are precluded by law-of-the-case doctrine and previously decided. | Law-of-the-case precludes reopening; no coram nobis relief. |
| Whether Lukach is entitled to appointment of counsel | Counsel is necessary to pursue postconviction relief. | No absolute right to counsel in postconviction civil matters. | Denied; no cognizable claim requiring appointment. |
| Whether a writ of certiorari is warranted | Lower court order warrants extraordinary review. | Other remedies exist and issues could have been raised earlier. | Not warranted; writ denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenzie v. Pierce, 2012 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2012) (two requirements for a writ of certiorari)
- McArty v. State, 2009 Ark. 232 (Ark. 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs revisiting issues)
- Robinson v. State, 2012 Ark. 356 (Ark. 2012) (writs require appropriate grounds; other remedies exist)