Stewart v. State, 481 S.W.3d 760

In 1974 Wayde (Wade) Earl Stewart and codefendant Tommy McGhee were convicted by a Pulaski County jury of first-degree murder committed during an attempted robbery and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Trial evidence: Stewart admitted carrying a sawed-off shotgun and going to the victim’s apartment to rob him; eyewitnesses described a shotgun blast and subsequent small‑caliber shots; the victim was hospitalized and later died after surgeries.
Autopsy issues: the victim was partially embalmed before autopsy; the pathologist opined death resulted from a pulmonary embolus that could have been caused by surgery or the chest gunshot; needle marks and potential drug use were noted.
Stewart filed a pro se petition seeking permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis, asserting Brady violations, incompetence at trial, trial‑error claims (inadmissible evidence, insufficiency), requests to exhume the body, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court considered whether Stewart’s claims fit the narrow, four-category coram‑nobis remedy and whether he alleged previously unknown, material facts that could have prevented the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was wrongfully withheld in violation of Brady	Stewart: State withheld favorable evidence (medical opinions, embalming, drug injection, causation issues)	State: Evidence cited was known at trial; no withholding occurred	Denied — no Brady violation; petitioner failed to show undisclosed, material evidence that would likely change outcome
Whether petitioner was legally incompetent at time of trial (coram nobis insanity claim)	Stewart: asserts he was never legally competent	State: No specific, previously unknown facts alleged to show incompetence	Denied — conclusory claim without new factual support; coram‑nobis requires specific, previously unknown facts
Whether trial errors or insufficiency of evidence justify coram‑nobis relief	Stewart: trial court admitted inadmissible evidence; cause of death not proven; evidence insufficient; requests exhumation	State: Trial‑error and evidentiary sufficiency are matters for direct appeal or Rule 37.1, not coram‑nobis	Denied — coram‑nobis is not a vehicle for trial‑error or sufficiency claims; those issues were or could be raised on direct appeal or by postconviction rule
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised in coram‑nobis	Stewart: alleges numerous ineffective assistance claims	State: IAC claims belong under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, not coram‑nobis	Denied — coram‑nobis is not a substitute for Rule 37.1 IAC claims

Stewart v. State, 257 Ark. 753, 519 S.W.2d 733 (affirming convictions on direct appeal)
Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61 (permission required to reinvest trial court jurisdiction for coram‑nobis after appeal)
State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (coram‑nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771 (petitioner bears burden to show fundamental error of fact extrinsic to record)
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374 (strong presumption that convictions are valid in coram‑nobis proceedings)
Isom v. State, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662 (Brady standard and evaluating reasonableness/probability of coram‑nobis allegations)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady and the reasonable‑probability standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard for undisclosed evidence under Brady)
Ventress v. State, 2015 Ark. 181 (sufficiency of evidence not cognizable in coram‑nobis)