LEON JACKSON RICE, JR. PETITIONER
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
SECOND PETITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; PRO SE MOTION TO RULE ON PRO SE
SECOND PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR-10-1733]
K. WOOD, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.
Jackson Rice, Jr. filed his second pro se petition and
supplemental petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Rice bases his claims on allegations that the State withheld
material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because Rice does not meet his burden, we
deny his petition and supplemental petition, and his
subsequent motion is moot.
convicted Rice of possession of cocaine and resisting arrest.
As an habitual offender, he was sentenced to thirty
years' imprisonment for possession of cocaine and to a
one-year term in the county jail for resisting arrest, to be
served concurrently. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed
the convictions and sentences. Rice v. State, 2011
Ark.App. 656. Rice's petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to Rule 37.1 (2011) of the Arkansas Rules of
Criminal Procedure was denied. Rice v. State, 2014
Ark. 230 (per curiam). Thereafter Rice filed his first
petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
consider a petition for error coram nobis. Rice alleged in
his first coram nobis petition that the State withheld the
videotape of his arrest in violation of Brady. We
denied this first petition. Rice v. State, 2016 Ark.
27, 479 S.W.3d 555 (per curiam). Now, Rice raises a new
judgment has been affirmed on direct appeal, a trial court
can only proceed with a petition for writ of error coram
nobis after this court has granted permission. Roberts v.
State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. A writ of error
coram nobis is available for addressing certain errors that
are found in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time
of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence
withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession
to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. In
alleging a prosecutor withheld material evidence, a
Brady violation, once must prove: (1) the evidence
at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is
exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the State
suppressed the evidence, either willfully or inadvertently;
and (3) prejudice ensued. Carner v. State, 2018 Ark.
20, 535 S.W.3d 634 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527
U.S. 263 (1999)). In an application for writ of coram nobis,
the petitioner has the burden to show specific facts that
substantiate a Brady claim. Mosley v.
State, 2018 Ark. 152, 544 S.W.3d 55.
asserts that at the time of his plea and arraignment, he was
unaware that his arrest warrant had been recalled. According
to Rice, he waived service of an arrest warrant during his
plea and arraignment hearing when he was not yet represented
by counsel and any waiver was not knowingly made. He attaches
a speed letter that stated the arrest warrant was recalled
before being "entered into the system." Rice
contends that the speed letter would have "proven a lack
of probable cause and false arrest." Rice also filed a
supplement petition that reasserts the allegations that the
prosecution was aware of the "speed letter" and
fails to state sufficient facts to establish a meritorious
Brady claim because he does not demonstrate that
information regarding the recall of the arrest warrant was
suppressed or that it is exculpatory. See Howard,
2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Rice has not offered any
support for the allegation that the recall of the arrest
warrant was information withheld by the State, and, in fact,
Rice merely alleges that it was unknown to him. Nevertheless,
it is not exculpatory. We have discussed Rice's confusion
over the role of the recall of the arrest warrant in an
earlier appeal. In affirming the denial of his petition for
Rule 37.1 relief, this court noted that:
Appellant's arguments regarding the lack of probable
cause seem to stem from his misunderstanding that all
criminal proceedings should have ceased when the arrest
warrant was recalled. It is apparent from the record,
however, that the arrest warrant was recalled because there
was no need for its issuance. . . .
Rice, 2014 Ark. 230, at 6 n.3.
the documents that Rice attached to his petition include an
arrest/disposition report issued by the North Little Rock
Police Department. This report reveals that Rice was arrested
following a traffic stop where Rice was found to be in
possession of crack cocaine and where Rice had also failed to
cooperate with the officers, in that Rice tried to pull away
from them and began kicking the officers. Thus, Rice was not
arrested pursuant to a warrant. As this court noted, the
arrest warrant was recalled because its issuance was
unnecessary and not because it was invalid. Rice,
2014 Ark. 230, at 6 n.3.
stated above, the function of the writ of error coram nobis
is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there
existed a fundamental error that would have prevented its
rendition had it been known at the time of trial.
Roberts, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. Rice has
failed to meet his burden of proof or state facts sufficient