Wilburn v. State
2014 Ark. 394
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 1996 Wilburn pled guilty to three counts of rape and one count of first-degree sexual abuse, receiving an aggregate 480 months with concurrent sentences including 120 months for sexual abuse.
- In 2013 Wilburn, pro se, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Miller County Circuit Court.
- The circuit court denied the coram-nobis petition as lacking merit and due diligence; Wilburn appealed.
- Wilburn argued the plea was coerced and not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered due to misadvice and inability to understand; he also alleged ineffective assistance and trial errors.
- The State argued coram-nobis relief was inappropriate for those claims and that the petition was untimely or inadequately diligent; the court agreed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding coram-nobis relief was improper here, due to lack of cognizable claims and failure to show due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram-nobis may address coerced plea/ineffective assistance | Wilburn contends coercion and ineffective assistance warrant relief | State says coram-nobis does not substitute for Rule 37.1 and these claims are not proper grounds | Not available; coram-nobis does not permit these claims |
| Whether the alleged insanity/competence issue fits coram-nobis grounds | Wilburn claims incompetence at entry of plea affected validity | Allegations are conclusory and outside coram-nobis scope | Not shown; insufficient factual basis; not a coram-nobis ground |
| Whether due diligence requirements bar relief for a 17-year delay | Petition was filed after a lengthy delay without acceptable excuse | Affirm denial; due diligence not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State, 431 S.W.3d 852 (2014 Ark. 91) (abuse of discretion standard for coram-nobis; evidence-based review)
- McClure v. State, — (2013 Ark. 306) (per curiam; standard for coram-nobis relief)
- Lee v. State, — (2012 Ark. 401) (per curiam; coram-nobis review framework)
- Cromeans v. State, — (2013 Ark. 273) (coram-nobis is rare; relief largely denied)
- Greene v. State, — (2013 Ark. 251) (categories of grounds for coram-nobis relief)
- Harris v. State, — (2014 Ark. 83) (limitations on coram-nobis for improper grounds)
- Tejeda-Acosta, — (2013 Ark. 217) (coram-nobis not substitute for Rule 37.1)
- Wright v. State, — (2014 Ark. 25) (due diligence requirements for coram-nobis petitions)
- Smith v. State, — (2012 Ark. 403) (timeliness/diligence considerations in postconviction relief)