Mackey v. State, 2014 Ark. 491

Willie Ray Mackey was convicted of first-degree murder in 1982, sentenced to life, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Mackey v. State, 279 Ark. 307, 651 S.W.2d 82 (1983).
A prior postconviction Rule 37.1 petition was denied by this court. Mackey v. State, 286 Ark. 188, 690 S.W.2d 353 (1985).
Mackey filed a pro se petition asking the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so it could consider a writ of error coram nobis.
Mackey alleged he was insane at trial due to PTSD, hallucinations, and flashbacks from Vietnam, and that trial counsel knew of his condition but failed to obtain a competency evaluation.
The State argued Mackey failed to demonstrate the requisite factual support, did not show due diligence in bringing the claim after 30+ years, and that ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings.
The court denied the petition, holding Mackey failed to meet the coram-nobis standards: his assertions were conclusory, lacked documentation, could have been raised at trial, and ineffective-assistance claims must be raised under Rule 37.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis may be granted for alleged insanity at time of trial	Mackey: PTSD, hallucinations, and flashbacks rendered him insane and incompetent; counsel knew but did not seek state-hospital evaluation	State: Mackey offered no factual support or documentation; any competency issues could have been raised at trial; long delay undermines diligence	Denied: claim conclusory, unsupported, and not shown to be undiscoverable at trial; no coram-nobis relief
Whether ineffective-assistance claims may be raised by coram-nobis	Mackey framed counsel's failure to seek evaluation as part of the coram-nobis ground	State: ineffective-assistance claims must be pursued under Rule 37.1, not coram-nobis	Denied: court held ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings

Mackey v. State, 279 Ark. 307, 651 S.W.2d 82 (Ark. 1983) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
Mackey v. State, 286 Ark. 188, 690 S.W.2d 353 (Ark. 1985) (postconviction Rule 37.1 denial)
Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2001) (permission required to reinvest trial court with coram-nobis jurisdiction after appeal)
Schrader v. State, 441 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2014) (coram-nobis is not a vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims)
Mason v. State, 436 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2014) (coram-nobis is not a substitute for Rule 37.1 ineffective-assistance relief)
Weekly v. State, 440 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2014) (courts need factual substantiation for coram-nobis claims)
Wilburn v. State, 441 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. 2014) (application must disclose specific facts; due diligence required)
Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2004) (requirements for factual disclosure in coram-nobis petitions)
Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (due diligence and timeliness in coram-nobis applications)
Anderson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 20 (Ark. 2012) (due-diligence sequence required for coram-nobis relief)