566 S.W.3d 462
Ark.2019Background
- Petitioner Shawn Trevell Rainer was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 960 months (80 years); the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
- The information alleged he was a habitual offender based on two prior felonies, including a 1998 second-degree murder conviction.
- Rainer contends the jury was instructed under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(c) (serious violent offender) but the judgment mistakenly cites subsection (a), and that the harsher (c) enhancement was improper and void.
- He seeks leave to file a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court to attack the judgment as containing an illegal sentence.
- The State responded that the information described prior convictions that bring the case within § 5-4-501(c), the sentence falls within the (c) statutory range, and the notation on the judgment appears to be a scrivener’s error.
- The Supreme Court considers whether coram nobis is an appropriate vehicle and whether the alleged defects amount to a facially illegal (void) sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Rainer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis may be used to challenge the sentence | Coram nobis should correct the judgment because the enhancement/language on the judgment is invalid and produced an illegal sentence | Coram nobis is improper for alleged trial or record errors; the sentence is within statutory range and the information supported the (c) enhancement | Denied — coram nobis not available for trial error or defects intrinsic to the record |
| Whether the sentencing enhancement used was beyond court authority (illegal/void sentence) | The judgment cites subsection (a) and Rainer claims only (a) could apply, so sentence is illegal | The jury was instructed under (c); the information alleged a prior murder conviction making (c) applicable; the 960-month term is within (c)'s range | Denied — sentence is not illegal on its face; within statutory authority |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object permits coram nobis relief | Counsel’s inaction made the enhancement improper and warrants coram nobis | Ineffective assistance or trial-error claims are not grounds for coram nobis | Denied — claims of ineffective assistance/trial error are not cognizable in coram nobis |
| Whether the defective-information claim raises a jurisdictional defect | Insufficient notice of (c) enhancement means conviction/sentence is void | Defective-information allegations here are intrinsic to the record and do not show lack of jurisdiction | Denied — defective-information claims do not implicate facial jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 549 S.W.3d 356 (Ark. 2018) (describing coram nobis as extraordinary, requiring error of fact extrinsic to the record)
- Martinez-Marmol v. State, 544 S.W.3d 49 (Ark. 2018) (trial error that could have been raised at trial is not cognizable in coram nobis)
- State v. Rainer, 440 S.W.3d 315 (Ark. 2014) (postconviction proceedings and related procedural history in this case)
- Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009) (illegal/void sentence is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time)
- Smith v. State, 140 S.W.2d 675 (Ark. 1940) (coram nobis corrects errors of fact, not trial errors)