Myers v. State
2013 Ark. 404
Ark.2013Background
- In 2005 Michael Myers and Scott Hall were convicted of drug-related offenses and sentenced to 288 months and 240 months, respectively; their convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Petitioners filed a pro se joint petition asking the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider petitions for writs of error coram nobis.
- Arkansas law requires this Court's permission before the trial court may entertain coram-nobis petitions after an affirmed judgment.
- The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy, limited to fundamental errors of fact extrinsic to the record (e.g., insanity at trial, coerced plea, withheld material evidence, or third-party confession between conviction and appeal).
- Coram-nobis petitions carry a strong presumption that the conviction is valid, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving an extrinsic, fundamental error not discoverable at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to allocution | Myers & Hall: trial court deprived them of allocution before judgment | State: issue was known or knowable at trial and thus could have been raised earlier | Denied — allocution claim not reviewable in coram-nobis because it could have been raised at trial |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Petitioners contend counsel was ineffective on multiple grounds | State: ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings | Denied — ineffectiveness claims are outside coram-nobis relief |
| Speedy-trial violation | Petitioners assert statutory and constitutional speedy-trial violations | State: speedy-trial claims are trial-era issues that could have been litigated at trial or on direct appeal | Denied — speedy-trial claim is not a basis for coram-nobis because it could have been raised earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635 (2001) (recognizing limited categories for coram-nobis relief)
- Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580 (1999) (defining the types of errors coram-nobis may address)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (1984) (noting the strong presumption of validity attached to convictions in coram-nobis proceedings)
- Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644 (1975) (discussing standards applicable to collateral challenges)