MARCHELLO PORTER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
2018 Ark. 22
Ark.2018Background
- Marchello Porter filed a pro se habeas petition under Act 1780 (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208), challenging his nolo contendere conviction for robbery (120 months) and alleging prosecutorial suppression of a security videotape that would show he did not leave with the stolen items.
- Porter asserted there was scientific evidence supporting his innocence but did not identify any specific scientific evidence or request any particular testing under the statute.
- The trial court denied the petition, concluding Porter had not shown he was entitled to relief or being illegally detained; the court treated the petition as a general habeas petition rather than strictly under Act 1780.
- Porter appealed, arguing the video and alleged withheld evidence established his innocence or at least warranted testing under Act 1780.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the petition met Act 1780’s statutory prerequisites for scientific-testing relief and whether the trial court’s denial was clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porter satisfied Act 1780’s requirement to identify scientific evidence or request testing | Porter claimed there was scientific evidence of innocence and pointed to a suppressed security videotape | State argued Porter identified no scientific evidence, requested no testing, and failed to meet statutory predicate requirements | Held: Porter failed to identify specific scientific evidence or request testing; petition failed under Act 1780 |
| Whether the trial court erred by not treating the petition strictly under Act 1780 or by considering other remedies (e.g., coram nobis) | Porter cited cases about coram nobis in his brief and argued relief was warranted | State noted Porter proceeded solely under Act 1780 and did not seek coram nobis; Act 1780 does not permit raising issues outside its scope | Held: No reversible error—trial court reached correct result even if it used different analysis; coram nobis cases inapplicable because Porter did not seek that relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (standards for appellate review of postconviction and Act 1780 scientific-testing denials)
- Marshall v. State, 2017 Ark. 208 (petition under Act 1780 must identify specific evidence for testing and meet statutory predicates)