Wilson v. State
2016 Ark. 327
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Alphonso S. Wilson was convicted in 2004 of capital murder under an accomplice-liability theory and sentenced to life without parole; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal based largely on Alphonso’s taped confession.
- Denise Wilson (his mother) and Charles Stevenson (his brother) were also tried/convicted; Denise did not testify at Alphonso’s trial but had previously given statements implicating both sons.
- Alphonso filed a pro se application in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking reinvestment of jurisdiction to pursue a writ of error coram nobis, attaching a later affidavit from Denise recanting her earlier statements and asserting Alphonso did not participate.
- Alphonso asserted the State withheld exculpatory evidence; Denise’s affidavit also was presented as a third-party confession/recantation.
- The court reviewed coram-nobis standards: the writ is extraordinary, available only for compelling, fundamental factual errors extrinsic to the record (including material evidence withheld by prosecutor or third-party confessions in a limited timeframe).
- The court denied reinvestment and Alphonso’s motion for a belated reply, finding the affidavit and allegations insufficient to meet coram-nobis requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court should reinvest jurisdiction to allow a coram-nobis petition alleging the State withheld exculpatory evidence (Denise’s recantation). | Wilson: Denise’s affidavit shows exculpatory evidence was withheld; her recantation would undermine his conviction. | State: No evidence that Denise made exculpatory statements to investigators/prosecutor at the time of trial; Alphonso’s own taped confession and knowledge were available and dispositive. | Denied — affidavit and allegations do not show a fundamental, extrinsic factual error or withheld material evidence that would have changed the verdict. |
| Whether Denise’s affidavit qualifies as a timely third-party confession warranting coram-nobis relief. | Wilson: The affidavit is a third-party confession that Denise alone and Charles committed the murder. | State: The alleged confession occurred over ten years after affirmance; third-party confessions must be raised before affirmance to permit effective inquiry. | Denied — untimely third-party confession; such claims are limited to the pre-affirmance period. |
| Whether a recantation alone supports coram-nobis relief. | Wilson: Denise’s recantation undermines prior statements implicating Alphonso. | State: Recanted testimony, standing alone, is not cognizable in coram-nobis; courts need to scrutinize late affidavits skeptically. | Denied — recantation alone insufficient; court need not accept late affidavits at face value. |
| Whether Alphonso’s pro se motion for a belated reply should be allowed. | Wilson: Requests leave to file a late reply to the State’s response. | State: No procedural provision allows a reply in coram-nobis proceedings under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule cited. | Denied — no rule permitting reply brief; motion to file belated reply denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664, 232 S.W.3d 455 (affirming Alphonso’s conviction based on his taped confession) (relied on for sufficiency of evidence)
- Wilson v. State, 364 Ark. 550, 222 S.W.3d 171 (Denise’s trial/appeal; she did not contest concerted action facts) (context on Denise’s earlier statements)
- Wallace v. State, 471 S.W.3d 192 (Ark. 2015) (limits third-party confession coram-nobis claims to pre-affirmance period)
- McArthur v. State, 439 S.W.3d 681 (Ark. 2014) (recanted testimony alone is not cognizable in coram-nobis)
- Taylor v. State, 303 Ark. 586, 799 S.W.2d 519 (coram-nobis requires showing the error would have produced a different verdict)
- Thomas v. State, 367 Ark. 478, 241 S.W.3d 247 (coram-nobis standards; burden on petitioner to show fundamental extrinsic error)