PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 23CR-13-186]
Stanley Ray Hunt II, pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for respondent.
F. WYNNE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner Stanley Ray
Hunt II's convictions for three counts of rape and his
sentence to an aggregate term of 480 months'
imprisonment. Hunt v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 53, 454
S.W.3d 771. Hunt filed a petition in this court in which he
requests this court's permission to proceed in the trial
court with a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to
challenge the convictions. The petition for leave to proceed
in the trial court is necessary because the trial court can
entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a
judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant
permission. Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. 227, 549
S.W.3d 356. Hunt does not provide a meritorious basis for
issuance of the writ in his petition, and we deny the
was convicted of raping his niece, who was fourteen years old
when she first reported the abuse to her school principal and
vice-principal. Hunt's proposed bases for issuance of the
writ are not completely clear, but Hunt's claims appear
to turn on allegations that the prosecution withheld evidence
of specific dates on which the victim stated the rapes
occurred. He alleges these dates were listed on an incident
report made by the school officials to police officers. Hunt
also complains that there are discrepancies in the dates of
the crimes in the information and amended information
charging him, the prosecuting attorney's probable-cause
affidavit, a detective's report, and the school-incident
report. He seems to contend this was trial error and that the
prosecution made false statements because the victim had
given specific dates in the incident report.
further asserts that he was incarcerated during a portion of
the date range given for the rapes and that there were
violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
arising from the prosecution withholding the school-incident
report and because information about his incarceration in
2007 was withheld from the jury. Hunt contends that he was
prejudiced as a result, that his attorney aided in the
commission of the Brady violations by stating that
no specific date was alleged when the school-incident report
indicated a specific date range and time for the crimes, and
that there was trial error in the admission of
reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider error
coram nobis relief only when the proposed attack on the
judgment is meritorious, and in making this determination, we
look to the reasonableness of the allegations in the petition
and to the probability of the truth thereof. Davis v.
State, 2019 Ark. 172, 574 S.W.3d 666. A writ of error
coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, and coram
nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that
the judgment of conviction is valid. Martin v.
State, 2019 Ark. 167, 574 S.W.3d 661. The function of
the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while
there existed some fact that would have prevented its
rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which,
through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not
brought forward before rendition of the judgment.
writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to
achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental
nature. Id. 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. Id.
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental
error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id.
claims of trial error do not provide a basis for the writ.
The writ is only granted to correct some error of fact, and
it does not lie to correct trial error or to contradict any
fact already adjudicated. Johnson v. State, 2019
Ark. 176, 575 S.W.3d 407. Claims of insufficient evidence and
claims of alleged false testimony at trial do not support the
writ. Chatmon v. State, 2017 Ark. 229. Defects in
the proceedings, including defects in the charging
instruments, that should have been raised during the
proceedings are not within the scope of the limited grounds
on which the writ may issue. Alexander v. State,
2019 Ark. 171, 575 S.W.3d 401. To the extent that Hunt
alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims are
likewise not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.
Johnson, 2019 Ark. 176, 575 S.W.3d 407.
of a Brady violation, however, fall within the third
category of fundamental error warranting the writ's
issuance. Id. Yet the mere fact that a petitioner
alleges a Brady violation is not sufficient to
provide a basis for error coram nobis relief, and the burden
is on the petitioner to make a full disclosure of specific
facts that substantiate the merit of a Brady claim.
Davis, 2019 Ark. 172, 574 S.W.3d 666.
petitioner alleges a Brady violation as the basis
for his or her claim of relief in coram nobis proceedings,
the facts alleged in the petition must establish that there
was evidence withheld that was both material and prejudicial
such as to have prevented rendition of the judgment had it
been known at the time of trial that such evidence existed.
Id. Evidence is material if there is a reasonable
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the
defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
was aware at the time of trial that he had previously been
incarcerated-in fact, he testified about that incarceration
at trial-so that information was not withheld. Hunt also failed
to allege any specific facts to support his conclusory claim
that the incident report was withheld. While he contends the
jury did not see the report, he does not appear to contend
that the report was not provided to the defense. A petitioner
does not satisfy any ground for granting the writ when he
does not allege that there was any evidence extrinsic to the
record that was hidden from the defense or that was unknown
at the time of trial. Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94,
571 S.W.3d 451.
record on direct appeal contains discovery receipts in which
the defense acknowledges having received three different
incident reports. The testimony at trial made clear that the
school officials were required to report the incident, and
Hunt has not shown that the defense was unaware that the
victim's statements had to be reported or that the
incident reports were not available. In fact, trial counsel
cross-examined the victim with her initial sworn statement
made in conjunction with the initial report. When the
allegations in support of issuance of the writ do not appear