Wallace v. State, 545 S.W.3d 767

Wallace was convicted in 1979 of kidnapping and capital felony murder; sentenced to 15 years for kidnapping and life without parole for murder; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Wallace's coram nobis petition alleges the prosecutor withheld material evidence and knowingly elicited perjured testimony in violation of Brady, based on testimony by codefendant Marton Hallman.
Hallman had been tried separately in 1978; Wallace attached portions of Hallman’s prior testimony and claims it conflicts with Hallman’s testimony at Wallace’s trial.
Coram nobis is an extraordinary post‑conviction remedy available only for fundamental errors extrinsic to the record (including material evidence withheld by the State), and the petitioner bears the burden to show such an error plus due diligence.
The court compared Hallman’s trial transcript and testimony at Wallace’s trial and found no material inconsistency; Hallman’s earlier testimony was a public record and therefore not suppressed by the State.
The court also found Wallace lacked due diligence: Hallman’s trial and appeal occurred before Wallace’s trial, so Wallace or counsel could have discovered and used Hallman’s prior testimony at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is warranted for alleged Brady/perjured testimony	Wallace: prosecutor withheld Hallman’s earlier testimony and elicited false testimony at Wallace’s trial, so relief is warranted	State: Hallman’s prior testimony was public, not suppressed; no material inconsistency; no Brady violation	Denied — Wallace failed to show suppressed, favorable evidence or material inconsistency sufficient to warrant coram nobis
Whether Hallman’s prior testimony was materially inconsistent with his testimony at Wallace’s trial	Wallace: prior testimony contradicted Hallman’s trial testimony	State: transcripts show no material conflict; both show Hallman did not see who pushed Smith but that Wallace and Harris admitted pushing him	Denied — no material difference demonstrated
Whether Wallace exercised due diligence in raising the claim	Wallace: discovered inconsistencies in 2014 (affidavit)	State: Hallman’s trial and appeal predated Wallace’s trial; Wallace or counsel could have discovered transcript before Wallace’s trial	Denied — petitioner failed to show due diligence
Whether a naked allegation of Brady suffices for coram nobis	Wallace: asserts Brady violation generally	State: mere allegation insufficient; must plead facts showing elements of Brady	Denied — conclusory allegation inadequate

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (coram nobis burden and rarity of the writ)
Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (Brady elements and coram nobis categories)
Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (presumption of validity for convictions in coram nobis proceedings)
Penn v. State, 670 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1984) (conclusory constitutional allegations insufficient for coram nobis)
Hallman v. State, 575 S.W.2d 688 (Ark. 1979) (affirming Hallman’s conviction)
Wallace v. State, 603 S.W.2d 399 (Ark. 1980) (affirming Wallace’s convictions)