Smith v. State
2017 Ark. 236
Ark.2017Background
- Olajuwon Smith pleaded guilty in November 2013 to multiple felonies after waiving his jury trial and was sentenced to an aggregate 480 months imprisonment (120 months suspended).
- Smith filed postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 twice; both petitions were denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal in 2015.
- Smith then filed two pro se coram nobis petitions (Feb. 2015 and Jan. 2016); the second was denied on Oct. 21, 2016, and he appealed.
- In the pretrial record the court had ordered Smith to wear a ‘‘kidney belt’’ under his clothing (to prevent violent outbursts during transport/trial) and discussed the belt’s capacity to deliver an electric shock; Smith alleged this intimidated him into pleading guilty.
- Smith also alleged a Brady violation: the State withheld material information about evidence, chain-of-custody, and possible tampering (e.g., discrepancies in drug weight and testimony about where drugs were found).
- The trial court denied coram nobis relief; the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether coram nobis was appropriate given the exceptional nature of the writ and the claims presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was coerced by court’s statements about a shock-capable "kidney belt" | Smith: court’s graphic description and threats to activate belt intimidated/coerced him into pleading guilty | State: court’s statements were security measures to prevent violence; no threats or activation threats tied to asserting trial issues | Denied — court found no coercion; no factual showing of threats or physical compulsion sufficient for coram nobis |
| Whether voluntariness/intelligence of plea can be corrected via coram nobis | Smith: plea was not voluntary; sought coram nobis relief | State: voluntariness claims are Rule 37.1 matters, not coram nobis | Denied — voluntariness challenges must be brought under Rule 37.1, not coram nobis |
| Whether the State committed a Brady violation by withholding material evidence about chain-of-custody/tampering | Smith: prosecutor concealed flaws (weight discrepancy, testimony about where drugs were) that would impeach evidence | State: alleged information was part of the pretrial/record; nothing extrinsic was shown; plea waived trial errors | Denied — Smith failed to show suppressed, material, extrinsic evidence creating reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether sufficiency-of-evidence or trial-error claims are cognizable in coram nobis | Smith: evidence was insufficient and not all information was considered | State: guilty plea waives guilt and trial-error claims; sufficiency claims not cognizable in coram nobis | Denied — sufficiency and trial-error claims are waived by guilty plea and not grounds for coram nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (2000) (coram nobis remedy is extraordinary and requires facts unknown at trial that would have prevented judgment)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of a different result)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- White v. State, 460 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. 2015) (definition of coercion and coram nobis limitations)
- Nelson v. State, 431 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. 2014) (strong presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis proceedings)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (petitioner bears burden to show fundamental factual error extrinsic to the record)
- Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (facts showing coercion must be presented and brought forward when available)
- Thacker v. State, 500 S.W.3d 736 (Ark. 2016) (allegations in coram nobis petitions are not accepted at face value)