Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91

In 1972 Nelson pled guilty to first-degree murder and received life imprisonment; co‑defendants pleaded to lesser charges and agreed to testify against him.
Nelson was represented by Attorney Gene Worsham, who also represented a codefendant (Hill) and allegedly obtained a plea for Hill in exchange for Hill’s testimony.
In 2012 Nelson filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging (1) his plea was coerced by threats of the death penalty and (2) his counsel had an actual conflict of interest and misrepresented parole eligibility, rendering the plea involuntary.
The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding the claims were cognizable under Rule 37 and should have been previously raised, and that the petition could be decided from the record.
The Arkansas Supreme Court majority affirmed, holding Nelson’s claims are effectively claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (not cognizable in coram nobis) and that no hearing was required because the petition failed to state a coram nobis claim.
A three-justice dissent argued the conflict of interest and alleged coercion (unknown to Nelson at the time of plea) could constitute coercion warranting coram nobis relief and thus required an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Nelson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Nelson pleaded guilty under coercion that is cognizable by coram nobis	Plea was coerced by counsel’s threats of the death penalty and misstatements about parole	Allegations amount to ineffective assistance claims, not coram nobis coercion	Court: Not cognizable as coram nobis; plea coercion not shown in legally recognized sense
Whether counsel’s conflict of interest renders plea involuntary and supports coram nobis relief	Worsham represented a codefendant who benefitted and counseled Nelson to plead to protect the co‑client	Conflict-of-interest claim is an ineffective-assistance claim to be raised under Rule 37	Court: Conflict claim is ineffective-assistance and outside coram nobis relief
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the petition	Nelson: factual dispute (unknown conflict, coercion) requires hearing	State: petition fails to state a coram nobis claim so no hearing necessary	Court: No hearing required where petition clearly has no coram nobis merit
Whether coram nobis can substitute for Rule 37 when Rule 37 deadline passed	Nelson: sought relief under coram nobis due to lateness of Rule 37	State: coram nobis is not a substitute for Rule 37 challenges	Court: Coram nobis is limited and not interchangeable with Rule 37; not available for IAC claims

Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (describing coram nobis scope and presumption of validity of conviction)
Deaton v. State, 285 S.W.3d 611 (Ark. 2008) (no hearing required when petition clearly has no merit)
State v. Tejedar-Acosta, 427 S.W.3d 673 (Ark. 2018) (coram nobis not a substitute for Rule 37 relief)
Hardwick v. State, 248 S.W.2d 377 (Ark. 1952) (discussing coercion/duress as coram nobis grounds)
State v. Hudspeth, 88 S.W.2d 858 (Ark. 1935) (duress/mob violence claim must be raised promptly)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (dual representation and conflict-of-interest principles)
United States v. Alvarez, 580 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1978) (actual conflict of interest renders proceedings fundamentally unfair)
Foxworth v. Wainwright, 516 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir. 1975) (conflict occurs when one defendant stands to gain from evidence damaging another)