Millsap v. State
2014 Ark. 493
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 1998 Lee Charles Millsap (aka Millsap, Jr.) pleaded guilty in Pulaski County to multiple felonies and received an aggregate life sentence without parole.
- Millsap filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition; the petition was denied and this Court affirmed in 2000.
- In 2010 Millsap filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at plea and in the Rule 37.1 proceedings, and claiming he was insane and his plea coerced.
- The trial court treated the coram-nobis petition as alleging insanity at trial and a coerced plea and denied relief; Millsap appealed and sought an extension and certiorari here.
- The Supreme Court found Millsap could not prevail on appeal, explained the narrow grounds for coram nobis relief, and dismissed the appeal as well as the motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis to assert ineffective assistance of counsel | Millsap argued counsel was ineffective at plea and in Rule 37.1 (no psychiatric evaluation) | State argued ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37.1, not coram-nobis | Held: Ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis; must be raised under Rule 37.1 (Schrader, Mason) |
| Whether insanity at time of plea supports coram nobis | Millsap alleged he was insane when he pleaded guilty | State noted record showed counsel pursued insanity defense and hearings were held; no new extrinsic facts presented | Held: Insanity claim cognizable in coram-nobis but Millsap failed to show any extrinsic, previously unknown facts to justify the writ |
| Whether plea was coercively induced such that coram nobis applies | Millsap contended plea was coerced | State argued alleged coercion was counsel’s advice about sentencing risk and not coercion by threats/duress | Held: Mere advice about harsher penalty if convicted at trial is not the type of coercion coram-nobis addresses; no extrinsic facts shown |
| Whether appeal should proceed when appellant cannot prevail | Millsap sought extension/time to file brief and certiorari petition | State maintained appeal should be dismissed where appellant cannot prevail | Held: Appeal dismissed and motions/petition deemed moot because appellant could not prevail (Edwards) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrader v. State, 441 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2014) (ineffective-assistance claims challenging a guilty plea belong in Rule 37.1, not coram nobis)
- Mason v. State, 436 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2014) (coram-nobis is not a substitute for Rule 37.1 ineffective-assistance claims)
- Cloird v. State, 182 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2004) (petition for coram-nobis must fully disclose specific extrinsic facts relied upon)
- Weekly v. State, 440 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2014) (coram-nobis cognizable for pleas coerced by fear, duress, or threats)
- Nelson v. State, 431 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. 2014) (threats or duress necessary to show coercion cognizable in coram-nobis)
- Wright v. State, 134 S. Ct. 2705 (2014) (allegations of involuntary or unknowing pleas due to advice or misunderstanding do not automatically warrant coram-nobis)