Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56

Roberts petitions this court to recall its mandate after mandatory review of his death-penalty conviction and sentence.
Roberts contends the affirmance was directly contrary to Miller v. State and seeks recall on that basis.
Roberts also argues that the waiver of postconviction rights was invalid and that affirmance of that waiver constitutes a defect warranting recall.
Roberts additionally petitions to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider a writ of error coram nobis based on alleged Brady violations.
The court declines to recall the mandate, deny reinvestment, and address coram nobis requests, citing Robbins factors and diligence requirements.
The factual record references the Miller decision and victim-impact testimony but the court finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting recall in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extraordinary circumstances warrant recalling the mandate due to Miller conflict	Roberts argues Miller-created error supports recall	State argues no Robbins-factor warrant for recall	No extraordinary circumstances; mandate not recalled
Whether recall is warranted for invalid waiver of postconviction rights	Roberts asserts waiver invalid due to mental state and proceedings	State contends waiver valid; no breakdown in process	Waiver validity not established as warranting recall
Whether reinvesting jurisdiction for coram nobis is warranted given diligence concerns	Roberts seeks coram nobis relief for Brady claims	State questions diligence and procedural path	Petition to reinvest denied due diligence findings

Robbins v. State, 114 S.W.3d 217 (Ark. 2003) (set framework for extraordinary-circumstances recall of mandate (Robbins factors))
Lee v. State, 238 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. 2006) (identifies factors reinforcing recall in death cases)
Wooten v. State, 370 S.W.3d 475 (Ark. 2010) (recall based on lack of verification in capital case)