Riley v. State
2015 Ark. 232
| Ark. | 2015Background
- In 2011 Riley was convicted by a Logan County Circuit Court jury of rape and sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Riley’s conviction on direct appeal in 2012 (Riley v. State, 2012 Ark. 462).
- Riley filed a pro se petition seeking reinvestment of jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
- A circuit court can entertain a coram nobis petition only after this court grants permission, which is discretionary and merits-dependent.
- Riley claimed coercion of the victim and a recanted affidavit as grounds for coram nobis relief.
- The court held that coram nobis relief is unavailable for recanted testimony and for other untimely or improper attacks on a judgment, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should reinvest jurisdiction to hear a coram nobis petition. | Riley argues coercion and new affidavits show fundamental error. | State contends coram nobis petitions require merit and discretionary permission, not merely new assertions. | Permission denied; petition dismissed for lack of cognizable coram nobis grounds. |
| Whether coram nobis relief can be granted for recanted testimony. | Riley contends the recantation warrants relief. | State treats recanted testimony as insufficient for coram nobis relief. | Recanted testimony does not support coram nobis relief. |
| Whether the writ of error coram nobis can address errors outside the four recognized categories. | Riley asserts broader grounds for relief. | State argues only established categories apply; no applicable grounds exist here. | Not cognizable; no fundamental extrinsic error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (Ark. 2013) (coram nobis is rare; only for compelling fundamental errors)
- Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2003) (merits-based permission required for coram nobis)
- Taylor v. State, 303 Ark. 586 (Ark. 1990) (recanted testimony generally not grounds for coram nobis)
- Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767 (Ark. 1940) (new trial not granted due to post-trial unreliability)
- Thomas v. State, 367 Ark. 478 (Ark. 2006) (recantations do not warrant coram nobis relief)
- Dickerson v. State, 2011 Ark. 247 (Ark. 2011) (direct attacks on judgment proper on direct appeal)
- Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 127 (Ark. 1987) (attacks on witness credibility constitute direct attack on judgment)
- Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91 (Ark. 2014) (due diligence not dispositive where no cognizable ground exists)