Rhoades v. State
455 S.W.3d 291
Ark.2015Background
- George L. Rhoades was convicted by a jury in 1993 of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to two concurrent life terms without parole; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Rhoades previously petitioned in 1999 to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis; that petition was denied.
- He now files a second petition to reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis, alternatively asking to proceed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, to recall the mandate, or for writ of certiorari; he also seeks appointment of counsel.
- Rhoades relies on Martinez v. Ryan and attaches a 1995 trial-court letter (incorrectly advising he needed this court’s permission to file under Rule 37.1) and a 1995 staff-attorney letter (correctly advising no leave was required).
- The 60-day Rule 37.2(c) filing window after mandate expired Feb. 28, 1995; the court says Rhoades could have timely filed in the trial court and pursued appeal if relief were denied.
- The court finds Rhoades has not shown any coram-nobis ground (the writ requires a fundamental, extrinsic factual error) and that none of the alternative procedural remedies he requests are appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must grant leave to file Rule 37.1 in trial court | Rhoades contends he was prevented from timely filing under Rule 37.1 due to the trial-court letter and cites Martinez | State points out Rule 37.1 does not require this court’s leave and Rhoades could have filed timely with the circuit clerk | Denied: Rule 37.1 did not require leave; Rhoades could have filed timely in trial court and his petition is not a substitute for procedural rules |
| Whether Martinez excuses untimely Rule 37.1 filing | Rhoades invokes Martinez to excuse procedural default because the trial court misadvised him | State argues procedural avenue remained open and Martinez does not entitle him to the relief he seeks here | Denied: Martinez does not revive his untimely Rule 37.1 filing or relieve him of procedural requirements |
| Whether coram nobis relief is available for alleged ineffective assistance, trial error, or appellate error | Rhoades seeks coram nobis for ineffective assistance, trial error, appellate error, and trial court’s alleged refusal to consider Rule 37.1 petition | State argues coram nobis is limited to narrow, fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record and not to the listed claims | Denied: Coram nobis unavailable; Rhoades failed to allege one of the recognized, extrinsic factual grounds for the writ |
| Whether mandate should be recalled or certiorari granted | Rhoades requests recall of mandate and/or writ of certiorari to address his claims | State relies on narrow criteria for recall of mandate and on procedural routes for appellate complaints | Denied: Rhoades does not meet criteria for recalling mandate; certiorari is not the proper remedy for the issues raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 319 Ark. 45, 888 S.W.2d 654 (Ark. 1994) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (procedural-default/ineffective-assistance framework)
- Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129 (1988) (petition cannot substitute for compliance with procedural rules)
- Miller v. State, 273 Ark. 508, 621 S.W.2d 482 (1981) (rehearing as avenue to challenge appellate error)
- Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84, 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006) (criteria for recalling appellate mandate)
- Mason v. State, 436 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2014) (limits on coram-nobis relief)
- Stewart v. State, 443 S.W.3d 538 (Ark. 2014) (trial errors should be raised at trial or on direct appeal)