McClure v. State
2013 Ark. 306
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 2001, McClure pled guilty to first-degree murder under a negotiated plea and was sentenced to 540 months’ imprisonment.
- In 2010, McClure filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging trial counsel failed to investigate and properly advise about the plea, allegedly coercing the plea.
- The circuit court denied relief citing lack of due diligence (nine-year delay) and failure to prove an extrinsic fact preventing judgment.
- The standard of review for coram nobis denials is abuse of discretion; an abuse occurs when the court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly.
- Coram nobis is rare and available only for fundamental errors of fact extrinsic to the record, within limited categories.
- On appeal, several asserted issues (Brady withholding, denial of jury trial, denial of counsel of choice) were deemed not preserved; ineffective assistance cannot be pursued in coram-nobis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the writ was properly denied for lack of due diligence | McClure | State | Affirmed; due diligence requirement satisfied denial |
| Whether a coerced plea based on counsel failure was grounds for relief | McClure argues coercion by counsel and plea pressures | State | Abandoned/waived; no preserved argument on appeal; coram nobis not available for ineffective assistance |
| Whether any Brady violation or denial of jury trial or counsel choice was grounds for relief | McClure asserts Brady and trial-right denials | State | Not considered; issues not preserved for appellate review |
| Whether the prosecution coerced the plea by threats | McClure asserts coercion by threats of life sentence | State | Not enough preservation or coercion level to warrant relief |
| Whether coram-nobis can address ineffective-assistance claims | McClure claims ineffective assistance merits coram-nobis relief | State | Not cognizable; such claims outside coram-nobis purview |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 2012 Ark. 401 (Ark. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard in coram-nobis review)
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (coram-nobis rare; four categories of relief)
- Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251 (Ark. 2013) (strong presumption of conviction validity; four relief categories)
- Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (Ark. 2013) (due-diligence considerations in coram-nobis petitions)
- White v. State, 2012 Ark. 221 (Ark. 2012) (issues raised for first time on appeal are abandoned)
- Sparks v. State, 2012 Ark. 464 (Ark. 2012) (Brady violation requires proof of suppressed evidence)
- Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. 403 (Ark. 2012) (Brady information known to defense does not support claim)
- Jackson v. State, 2010 Ark. 81 (Ark. 2010) (timing of information affects grounds for relief)
- Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606 (Ark. 2009) (denial of writ where coercion claims are not established)
- James v. State, 2013 Ark. 290 (Ark. 2013) (issues abandoned when not argued on appeal)