Swanigan v. State, 2015 Ark. 371

Terry Swanigan was convicted of first-degree murder in 1993 for the 1992 shooting death of Lewis Allen and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed the conviction.
Swanigan filed a prior pro se petition in 2002 seeking reinvestment of jurisdiction to pursue a writ of error coram nobis; it was denied.
He filed a second pro se petition and a motion for production of documents seeking reinvestment so he could pursue coram-nobis relief in the trial court.
Swanigan’s coram-nobis claims: (1) a Brady violation — the State allegedly withheld a 911 call and investigators’ notes showing Swanigan called for help after the shooting; (2) the State used false testimony — a key witness, Timothy Henderson, later signed an affidavit recanting parts of his trial testimony.
The Court summarized coram-nobis standards: remedy is rare, limited to certain fundamental errors, petitioner must show facts extrinsic to the record, and must demonstrate material suppressed evidence or other enumerated grounds.
The Court denied the petition and the production motion: Swanigan gave no factual basis showing the 911 call or suppression; recanted testimony is not a ground for coram-nobis; there is no authority to use this Court’s reinvestment process to seek document-collection assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady suppression of 911 call/notes	Swanigan: investigators hid a 911 call/tape and notes that would show he sought to help the victim, which would be favorable/impeaching	State: no evidence such materials existed or were suppressed; defense knew of the call and could have subpoenaed tape/notes at trial	Denied — petitioner offered no factual support that evidence existed or was suppressed; claim fails coram-nobis standards
Use of false testimony (witness recantation)	Swanigan: Henderson’s affidavit shows trial testimony was false and would undermine verdict	State: recantation and credibility attacks are not grounds for coram-nobis; such attacks belong at trial or on direct review	Denied — recanted testimony does not warrant coram-nobis relief; direct attacks on credibility are not within the writ
Motion for production of documents	Swanigan: requests all witness statements and pay-phone records to support coram-nobis petition	State/Court: no procedure allows this Court to order document collection at reinvestment stage; petitioner must present facts to justify reinvestment	Denied — Court will not assist in gathering factual support for a coram-nobis petition through this reinvestment process

Swanigan v. State, 316 Ark. 16, 870 S.W.2d 712 (Ark. 1994) (affirming Swanigan’s conviction)
Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61 (requirement to obtain this Court’s permission to reinvest jurisdiction for coram-nobis)
State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (coram-nobis remedy is extraordinarily rare)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771 (petitioner must prove fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record)
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38 (enumerating the limited categories for coram-nobis relief)
Isom v. State, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662 (assessing reasonableness and probability of truth of coram-nobis allegations)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three-element Brady framework and materiality standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Brady materiality applied to impeachment evidence)
Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (coram-nobis requires specific facts, not bare conclusions)
Taylor v. State, 303 Ark. 586, 799 S.W.2d 519 (recantation is not a ground for coram-nobis)
McArthur v. State, 2014 Ark. 367, 439 S.W.3d 681 (recanted testimony does not support coram-nobis relief)
Riley v. State, 2015 Ark. 232 (victim recantation does not warrant coram-nobis)
Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 127, 741 S.W.2d 246 (direct credibility attacks are to be dealt with at trial)