Scott v. State, 2017 Ark. 199

Background

In 2006 Broderick Don Scott pleaded guilty to multiple violent offenses and received an aggregate 360‑month sentence.
Scott filed a pro se coram nobis petition in 2013, which was denied; his belated‑appeal motion was later denied by this Court.
In 2016 Scott filed an amended coram nobis petition alleging the State withheld an exculpatory victim statement (file‑marked April 3, 2006 in North Little Rock) that would have prevented his guilty plea.
The trial court denied the 2016 petition as untimely and on diligence grounds, noting the earlier 2013 ruling.
On appeal Scott argued Brady suppression, actual innocence, and a confrontation‑rights violation; the State argued lack of diligence and that Scott failed to prove suppression or materiality.
The Arkansas Supreme Court held the Brady claim had arguable merit and that the trial court did not adequately consider Scott’s diligence; the matter was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. (Motions for counsel and production of documents were rendered moot; Wood, J., dissented.)

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis may be used to raise actual‑innocence/sufficiency claims	Scott: actually innocent; withheld evidence would have prevented plea	State: actual‑innocence is a direct attack on judgment and not cognizable in coram nobis	Denied as basis for coram nobis — actual‑innocence claims are direct attacks and not proper in coram nobis
Whether the victim statement was suppressed in violation of Brady	Scott: victim’s April 3, 2006 statement was exculpatory, withheld by State, and would have changed outcome	State: no proof prosecutor or State had access; file stamp alone doesn’t show suppression or relation to case	Court: Brady claim may have merit; statement appears exculpatory and could be imputed to State — requires factual development
Whether Scott exercised due diligence in pursuing coram nobis	Scott: did not know of statement until 2013; filed coram nobis promptly after learning; incarceration prevented earlier discovery	State: unreasonable delay — petition filed years after discovery and long after plea; trial court previously found untimely	Court: trial court focused only on lapse from plea and did not adequately consider when Scott learned of the statement; remanded to evaluate diligence at trial level
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying without an evidentiary hearing	Scott: factual dispute (existence, possession, awareness) warrants hearing	State: petition fails on its face or lacks proof; appellate review limited if no trial ruling on Brady merits	Court: reversal and remand for evidentiary hearing — trial court should assess diligence, suppression, and materiality; denial without adequate consideration was an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (1999) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy; trial court can hold evidentiary hearing)
Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539 (354 S.W.3d 61) (due‑diligence sequence required for coram nobis)
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177 (403 S.W.3d 38) (Brady suppression can be cognizable in coram nobis where material and undisclosed)
Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386 (502 S.W.3d 524) (courts need not accept petition allegations at face value but must consider whether diligence was shown)
Bienemy v. State, 2016 Ark. 312 (498 S.W.3d 288) (materiality under Brady requires reasonable probability of different result)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements of Brady: favorable, suppressed, and material/prejudicial)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable‑probability standard for impeachment evidence under Brady)