Pitts v. State
2014 Ark. 132
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Kenneth Ray Pitts was convicted in Pulaski County (2006) of second-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child; sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms (720 months and 180 months). The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
- Pitts filed a pro se petition asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court so he could pursue a writ of error coram nobis and also moved for appointment of counsel.
- Coram-nobis relief is an extraordinary post-appeal remedy available only with this court’s permission; it addresses fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record and is tightly cabined to limited categories of error.
- The petition alleged (1) lack of jurisdiction by the circuit court (conclusory), (2) a Brady violation—prosecutor withheld material evidence (largely conclusory, with attached exhibits but no clear showing of withheld, exculpatory material), and (3) was filed roughly seven years after conviction.
- The Court declined to reinvest jurisdiction, finding Pitts’s claims conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations showing materiality or prejudice, and noted lack of due diligence given the long delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Circuit-court jurisdiction | Pitts: trial court acted without jurisdiction | State: jurisdictional assertion is conclusory and unsupported | Denied — conclusory jurisdictional claim insufficient; court need not credit bare assertions |
| Brady (withheld evidence) | Pitts: prosecutor suppressed material/exculpatory evidence | State: allegations are conclusory; exhibits do not show withholding or materiality | Denied — petitioner failed to identify specific suppressed evidence, show it was favorable or prejudicial, or meet Brady standard |
| Coram nobis availability/categories | Pitts: seeks coram-nobis to remedy underlying errors | State: coram-nobis is narrow and only available for specified fundamental errors | Denied — petitioner did not show facts fitting recognized coram-nobis categories or fundamental-error standard |
| Due diligence / delay | Pitts: (implicit) timely enough to seek relief | State: seven-year delay without showing due diligence or valid excuse | Denied — delay alone supports denial; petitioner failed to satisfy due-diligence requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality: reasonable probability the outcome would differ)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (definition of materiality for withheld evidence)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (limitations and standards for coram-nobis relief)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (coram-nobis is extraordinary and rarely granted)
- Lacy v. State, 377 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2010) (conclusory allegations insufficient for postconviction relief)
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 783 (Ark. 2011) (burden on petitioner to demonstrate fundamental extrinsic error)
- Echols v. State, 125 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. 2003) (court will not reinvest jurisdiction to permit a fishing expedition)