Philyaw v. State
2014 Ark. 130
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Charles Philyaw was convicted of aggravated robbery in 1981 and sentenced to life plus $12,000 fine; direct appeal affirmed.
- Philyaw filed in this court requesting reinvestment of jurisdiction to pursue a coram nobis petition and sought counsel appointment.
- Petition argued juror bias, prejudicial trial testimony, withheld exculpatory/impeachment evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Court held coram nobis relief is available only in narrow categories; most claims were not cognizable in coram nobis.
- Only potential coram-nobis ground was alleged Brady material suppression; other claims barred as addressed at trial or on direct appeal.
- Court denied petition and motion; dissents addressed due diligence and obiter-discussed due-diligence applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias as a basis for coram nobis | Philyaw argued juror animosity and voir dire failing prejudiced trial. | State asserted jury-bias claims are not cognizable in coram nobis. | No cognizable coram-nobis ground; issue not eligible for relief. |
| Trial judge's questioning of key witness | State failed to disclose; questioning prejudicial. | Such trial errors are not proper coram-nobis grounds. | Not cognizable in coram nobis; dismissed as trial error. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial | Counsel provided ineffective representation. | Ineffectiveness belongs to postconviction Rule 37.1, not coram nobis. | Denied; properly raised under Rule 37.1, not coram nobis. |
| Brady material – suppression of exculpatory evidence | State withheld exculpatory radio description and clothing evidence. | Brady material does not establish failure to disclose; testimony could be impeached otherwise. | Brady claim analyzed; some evidence discussed, but petition denied overall. |
| Due diligence requirement for coram nobis petitions | Philyaw did not act with undue delay; petition timely. | Due diligence required and not shown; petition denied on diligence grounds. | Due diligence required; petition denied for lack of due diligence; dissents discuss Nelson precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. State, 2014 Ark. 44 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2014) (permits coram-nobis access only with leave from this court)
- Charland v. State, 2013 Ark. 452 (Ark. 2013) (limits coram-nobis relief to fundamental errors)
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (jury bias and related claims generally not cognizable in coram-nobis)
- Evans v. State, 2012 Ark. 161 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis not for ordinary trial error)
- McDaniels v. State, 2012 Ark. 465 (Ark. 2012) (ineffective assistance not proper coram-nobis relief)
- Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 (Ark. 2013) (coram-nobis carries presumption of valid judgment)
- Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91 (Ark. 2014) (due diligence considerations discussed; later cited in dissent)
- Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644 (Ark. 1975) (due diligence and timeliness considerations in coram-nobis)
- Cherry v. State, 2014 Ark. 81 (Ark. 2014) (discusses due diligence in coram-nobis context)
- Tejeda-Acosta v. State, 2013 Ark. 217 (Ark. 2013) (standard for postconviction relief separate from coram-nobis)