Williams v. State
518 S.W.3d 653
Ark.
2017
Check Treatment

*1 WILLIAMS, Ray Appellant Alvin Arkansas, Appellee

STATE

No. CR-16-511

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion February Delivered: *2 jurisdiction in the circuit court reinvest of petition a for writ error consider response. The a

coram nobis.1 filed State petition by This granted court Williams’s 7, entry on syllabus January Williams, Rock, appel- for Little John C. permission lant. granted After this court petition his for proceed, filed Williams Gen., Rutledge, Att’y by: Vada Leslie in of error coram nobis the Pulaski writ Gen., for Berger, appellee. Ass’t Att’y basis for County Circuit Court. The his WYNNE, petition Justice is a claim. was ROBIN F. Associate Williams in first-degree murder convicted |-iAlvin from an Ray appeals Williams shooting Henry; death Ron asserted County Court the Pulaski Circuit order of shooting by justified self- co- petition for of error denying his writ prosecution defense. He that the contends argues appeal this nobis. He on ram exculpatory failed disclose statement or court should reverse circuit court’s his claim by supported a witness a petition his new der and order (Williams) pulled gun Henry and trial, or if this court that imme determines gun struggle obtained the in their and light diate relief is unwarranted1 Henry shot self-defense. record, he asks that this court current develop and for reverse factual deny- The an order circuit court entered opinion. a If the case is ment and reasoned petition, stating as ing Williams’s follows: remanded, he also court asks* 2016, day the 15th Petition- “On of March the circuit of his reverse court’s denial Error er’s Petition Coram Writ for proceed pauperis in forma request on Nobis filed February came on argu appoint counsel. find merit his finds that Pe- for consideration. The court evi- for an ments and reverse remand' titioner’s Petition Error Coram Writ for containing hearing dentiary and an order Nobis should hereby be is Denied.” On findings of fact. We also date, the same entered an appoint proceed in forma appoint motion to order Lee D. as counsel. pauperis, counsel mo- findings. also without filed a Williams November In Williams ^ruling for tion for reconsideration and first-degree mur guilty jury a found proceed in and a motion forma renewed imprisonment. der and sentenced to life both of pauperis, which appeal. on direct This affirmed appeal denied. This followed. 432, 930 (1996). subsequently This court This for court’s standard consid petition the denial of affirmed ering petition reinvest a for postconviction relief under Rule 37. court to for consider 97-1020, No. CR as coram nobis is follows: wiit (Ark. 1998) (unpub Dec. WL 865047 per grant permission In This court lished December will proceed in trial asking filed a grant permission. 1. The circuit court Pitts can entertain (1999). of error writ appeal only has been affirmed after we petition for with a hearing will have resulted. will There appears proposed when it system no now.”) void as there attack on is meritorious. responds by arguing determination, such a we look circuit court’s order should be affirmed *3 to the allegations reasonableness lack of or for failure to demon- petition and the existence of strate a reasonable probability that probability of the truth thereof. judgment not been have entered had the statement been available to State, 177, 5, Howard v. 2012 Ark. at 403 Williams at trial. argues further 38, Furthermore, although that, most, at Williams is only entitled to a specific there is no time for seeking limit further factual development nobis, writ error coram thus far he alleged, has not required making an application for re proved, that the prosecution withheld Philyaw 130, 6, lief. 2014 Ark. at Smith’s statement from him and his trial (per 2014 WL 1096201 The es counsel. We note the State made sub- that sence of the writ of error coram nobis is stantially arguments similar regarding dili- that it is very addressed court that gence and the response in its merits brief injustice renders the where before petition this court on the to reinvest done, alleged to have been rather than to jurisdiction, but this court nonetheless appellate an or other court. State v. Lari Thus, granted petition. argu- these more, 87, 341 Ark. 17 S.W.3d ments have been considered this court (2000) (citing Dictionary Black’s Law 337 previously rejected.2 We reverse and (6th. 1990)). ed. remand the .circuit court’s order petition for Williams’s writ of coram standards, Under these agree we nobis, and we direct the court to hold an argument Williams’s evidentiary hearing enter order an required deny court was to more do than making specific findings as to whether petition allowing without discov Williams is entitled to relief. ery, holding hearing, evidentiary point appeal The final concerns any findings of granting fact. In whether the circuit erred in petition, necessarily this court proceed pau- Williams’s motion to forma petition that his found for writ of error peris appointed. and have counsel Present appeared coram be meritorious. counsel, Williams, John C. states stands, As it now court re represented pro has bono in this viewed exact same record as was be matter, presently but he does have fore this peti determined that the time to to do continue so. He states that merit, tion denied Lee D. willing has that he is stated findings of fact. without Penn Cf. accept appointment in this matter. 577, 426, 571, 282 Ark. 670 S.W.2d (“If |¿This [the for writ regards has stated that merit, by has matters, nobis] means postconviction all no there is abso- |4granted; petition writ should if the right lute counsel. Strawhacker er proof, fails his burden of then at least at WL recognize 2. While we diligence, to rein- failed to exercise due see Howard v. vest consider a writ of error will be denied where we so find in this case. finds as a matter of law that Lockhart, following writ to issue the affirmance curiam) (citing Howard v. sentence, | petition- (per curi- ^conviction Nevertheless, a fundamental error um)). has held er must show function to the record. The a substantial fact extrinsic appellant if an makes from a in a is to secure relief that he is entitled showing while there existed cannot rendered postconviction matter and counsel, prevented effectively we will some fact which would have without if it had been known Having Id. considered the its rendition appoint counsel. which, through negli- no pro- trial court and support of his affidavit defendant, specific gence fault ceed case, brought of this forward before rendition circumstances *4 only ap- judgment. The writ is issued under pauperis in forma status jus- him this circumstances to achieve point represent compelling D. Lee Short most errors of the matter. tice and address that a nature. fundamental We held remanded; Reversed coram nobis is available writ of error granted; Lee proceed found in certain errors that are address appointed D. as counsel the (1) insanity at categories: of four one court. trial, (2) guilty the time of a coerced withheld plea, material evidence Hart, J., concurs. third-party con- prosecutor, the C.J., Wood, J., Kemp, dissent. during crime the time fession the Hart, Justice, Josephine Linker appeal. conviction and between concurring. (internal at at 42-43 Id. S.W.3d omitted). Further, Howard agree majority

I the that this case citations the with court properly remanded to the circuit court noted that prior upon inasmuch as its actions for a grant permission court will [t]his indistinguishable from the completely were trial court the petitioner again placed that once this case actions of error coram with it is separately I before us. write proposed only appears nobis it the when dispose court “due- time this is meritorious. attack our diligence” associated determination, look such jurisprudence. allegations to the reasonableness to the existence the black-letter law re- First consider truth probability thereof. coram nobis in Arkansas. garding error following it is have so often said Flana- (quoting at at 43 Id. proceedings axiomatic: error coram 1, 2010 2010 Ark. WL gan by strong presumption are attended curiam)). require- Adding a See, is valid. conviction act with “due e.g., Howard already dauntingly diffi- diligence” The Howard set out S.W.3d 38. contrary purpose cult burden regularly our boilerplate appears stumbling block to It should be a writ. decision relief. the writ is coram nobis relief when error there justice issued to achieve when only A coram nobis is an ex- writ of error in- manifest been a fundamental and remedy, more known has traordinarily rare justice. For the approval. than its its denial Furthermore, Wood, Justice, concept of dissenting. “due dili Rhonda K. completely any objec gence” devoid I appellant dissent because is not enti- tive standard. consider We need sought. tled Williams did companion cases of Strawhacker requesting exercise due and Pitts v. for writ of nobis re- 501 S.W.3d 803. In court, issuing lief. This without written cases, jurisdiction those we reinvested in opinion, granted petition to re- the trial to consider the effect of invest in the circuit court to testimony of repudiated |scoram trial FBI lab tech consider error nobis relief.1 The Malone, nician a forensic hair ana making specific Michael also without lyst. Pitts find lack of findings, had been incarcerated since could Therefore, hearing. absent a since 1990. Both and Strawhacker circuit court its not abuse discretion in Department men were notified that the I affirm. the writ. would (DOJ) repudiated Justice had Malone’s However, testimony in 2014. the substance Contrary majority’s opinion to the to- J letter was Malone’s testi day, 17PO jurisdic- when this reinvested mony infirm because he had offered tion in the not tacitly opinion that *5 expert an exceeded the reject due-diligence argument. the State’s practiced—micro bounds science he importantly, More the court could However, hair scopic analysis. it was ap not have known what this court considered parent testimony that Malone’s was infirm rejected the court very day gave for that the reason he explaining issue a rea- opinion its Moreover, it.1 neither Pitts’s nor Stra- reinvesting jurisdic- or purpose sons upon receipt action of whacker’s the DOJ coram Typically, tion. when an error repudiating notification that it Ma merit, was apparent claim has has testimony exactly lone’s was instantaneous. it to left the circuit court determine the short, this court has seen a when case of diligence. issue due See Howard 38; apparent, an in which there has been man 403 Ark. S.W.3d justice, diligence” ifest denial of “due Cloird S.W.3d (2002) curiam) people (“[Fjinally, an of never issue. The require gain nothing by unjustly impri proceedings Arkansas the peti- coram nobis soning proceeded of with due one its fellow citizens. tioner show type croscopic of The DOJ the FBI review hair association—this tes- concluded that science; timony types there were three of errors in Malone's limits of exceeded the the testimony: or (3)the the number of examiner cites cases (1) implied or examiner stated [T]he laboratory analyses or in the hair worked evidentiary the hair could be associated samples and the from different of number specific with a to the exclusion individual distinguished not be individuals that could type science; testimony all others—this exceeded predictive from one another value to as the limits of the (2) belongs assigned bolster that a positive the conclusion hair the the examiner weight specific type testimony probabili- individual—this association statistical ty provided ques- a likelihood that the exceeded limits of the science. Pitts, originated particular from a tioned hair source, supra. opinion or an as to likelihood or Notably, grant from 1. I dissented positive rareness of the association that to reinvest jury believe could lead the that valid assigned weight statistical to a mi- the circuit court. can diligence, presented of due for relief. the exercise

diligence making application trial; discovering upon consid the fact Accordingly, the trial court should fact, delay bringing he did possible er whether raised petition. Newman manner.”) (in timely in a violation Lari see also omitted); ternal citations 271, 281-82,

more v. Brady viola- allegation of a (“As the trial exculpatory on an state- tion is founded writ, the considers whether Smith, companion, from ment obtained ... Due following guidelines applicable are The state- evening of the murder. applica required making an provides Smith was and, relief, of a tion for absence the vic- when the altercation with delay, petition will be valid excuse the scene short- began tim but he fled denied.”). have de could emerged before the ly gun after the lack nied the writ was victim shot. reviewing par due circumstances, Under these attached ties’ motions and evidence First, diligence. not exercise due analysis re

thereto. Such all contained aware of the facts hearing. quire court to hold a the same statement because he witnessed |t (Williams majority contends also was events. aware IflThe explained why scene, identity court should have at the presence Smith’s order, but this diligence, in its written and in the exercise practice. Just is inconsistent with our own and called him as could have located Smith explain why we required as are at trial. witness jurisdiction, today, we have reinvest before unnecessarily delayed Finally, Williams *6 never held that a circuit court must make first bringing petition. findings of fact in September in learned Smith’s statement granting a of error nobis. Our 2010, following a of Information Freedom the decision role to determine whether request. Act Yet he did file his denying the writ was an of discre- abuse years more than until December five arbi- tion because the acted that a five- previously later. have held v. Nelson trarily groundlessly. year delay requesting If con- 852. we 431 S.W.3d Thomas diligent. relief is not circuit clude that the court’s decision discretion, should af- not an abuse attempts to circum- hearing irrespective firm of whether a five-year delay by arguing that vent this diligently held. Because a claim until when he he did Brady violation, his circuit pursue containing prosecutor’s received the file relief. properly denied Williams mistakenly He assumes statement. Therefore, affirm. we should Brady violation arises had prosecutor act- there is Upon considering whether Williams evidence A allegedly statement. diligence given the facts he undisclosed ed occurs when offered violation deny- it is law enforce- regardless not abuse court did its discretion whether office, prosecutor’s or the withholds ing diligence requires relief. Due evidence. Howard fact at be unaware defendant have, Therefore, trial; (2) if at 45. even time of he could everything appellant factually alleges

true, Rracfoy-violation claim became to him police

known once he received

file and discovered Smith’s statement

police. It is factually irrelevant whether up prose-

Smith’s statement turned

cutor’s file when was obtained

Because the circuit court was correct writ, I

denying his affirm. C.J.,

Kemp, joins.

2017 Ark. 167 MITCHELL, Jr.,

Denver Petitioner Arkansas, Respondent

STATE

No. CR-93-173

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion 4,May Delivered

Read the detailed case summary