Travis v. State
2017 Ark. 178
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Kenny Travis Jr. seeks reinvestment of jurisdiction to file a second coram nobis petition attacking his 2006 convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery in Mississippi County. He previously appealed and this court affirmed his convictions.
- Travis alleges prosecutorial misconduct and suppression of various materials (an original cell-phone confession recording, coroner’s report/timing of death, lab reports/notes, two witness interviews, juvenile records, search results, and a lawnmower-purchase video).
- He frames many claims as Brady violations (failure to disclose favorable, material evidence) and also alleges defective informations, illegal warrants, evidentiary errors, and press statements.
- The petition is the second to this court seeking permission to proceed in the trial court; the first raised venue-related trial error and was denied.
- The Supreme Court reviews coram nobis petitions for reasonableness and probability of truth of allegations, recognizing coram nobis as a narrow remedy limited to fundamental errors that were unknown and could not have been raised at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged withheld items constitute Brady material meriting coram nobis relief | Travis: prosecution withheld recordings, coroner's report, lab reports/notes, interviews, juvenile record, search results, and video that were favorable/material | State: most items were known or available at trial, not shown withheld or prejudicial, many are trial errors or speculative | Denied — evidence either known at trial, not shown withheld, or not materially prejudicial; no basis for coram nobis |
| Whether claims are cognizable in coram nobis vs. trial or Rule 37 relief | Travis: couches issues as Brady/fundamental errors suitable for coram nobis | State: many claims are trial errors or ineffective-assistance claims better addressed on direct appeal or Rule 37 | Denied — trial-error and ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram nobis |
| Whether petitioner exercised due diligence in discovering alleged facts | Travis: contends some facts were hidden until after trial | State: shows petitioner knew or could have known many facts at trial; prior litigation raised several issues | Denied — petitioner failed to show required due diligence for coram nobis |
| Whether withheld evidence (if any) would have prevented rendition of judgment | Travis: withheld items would impeach witnesses or point to alternate suspect altering verdict | State: evidence would not have produced admissible proof of alternate suspect or altered the outcome; many items speculative or more damaging to defense | Denied — petitioner did not demonstrate reasonable probability of a different result or that withheld evidence would have prevented judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. State, 460 S.W.3d 774 (recognizing coram nobis categories and narrow scope)
- Isom v. State, 462 S.W.3d 662 (standard for granting permission to proceed)
- Penn v. State, 670 S.W.2d 426 (court need not accept petition allegations at face value)
- White v. State, 460 S.W.3d 285 (coram nobis rarely granted)
- Clark v. State, 192 S.W.3d 248 (coram nobis addresses facts unknown or hidden at trial)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Brady allegations alone insufficient for coram nobis; diligence requirement)
- Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (presumption of validity of conviction in coram nobis)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (State’s duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Thacker v. State, 500 S.W.3d 736 (definition of materiality for Brady)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (diligence and when evidentiary hearing is warranted)
- Carter v. State, 501 S.W.3d 375 (coram nobis not to relitigate adjudicated facts)
- Tejeda-Acosta, 427 S.W.3d 673 (ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37 proceedings)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (court will deny clearly undiligent petitions)
- Echols v. State, 936 S.W.2d 509 (third-party-suspect evidence admissible only if it directly points to guilt)
- Zinger v. State, 852 S.W.2d 320 (standards on admissibility of third-party evidence)