DARRYL TALLEY, JR. PETITIONER
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST DIVISION, NO. 60CR-11-3766]
Talley, Jr., pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for respondent.
R. BAKER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
before this court is a pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis filed by petitioner Darryl Talley,
Jr. In his petition, Talley alleges that exculpatory
testimony of two witnesses was suppressed in violation of
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because
Talley has failed to state sufficient facts to establish a
Brady violation, we deny the petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis.
was convicted of robbery, theft of property, and employment
of a firearm to commit aggravated robbery, for which he
received an aggregate sentence of 168 months'
imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
convictions and remanded the case for the limited purpose of
allowing the trial court to correct a clerical error in the
sentencing order that Talley had been convicted of Class B
felony theft rather than Class C felony theft. Talley v.
State, 2017 Ark.App. 550, 533 S.W.3d 95.
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. Roberts v.
State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. A writ of error
coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. Id.
Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption
that the judgment of conviction is valid. Id.;
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374.
The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment
rendered while there existed some fact that would have
prevented its rendition had it 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.
Roberts, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. The
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental
error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id.
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.;
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
court will grant permission to proceed with a petition for
the writ only when it appears that, looking to the
reasonableness of the allegations in the petition and the
probability of the truth of those allegations, the proposed
attack on the judgment is meritorious. Jones v.
State, 2017 Ark. 334, 531 S.W.3d 384. This court is not
required to accept at face value the allegations in the
petition. Id. The burden is on the petitioner in the
application for coram nobis relief to make a full disclosure
of specific facts relied on and not to merely state
conclusions as to the nature of such facts. Rayford v.
State, 2018 Ark. 183, 546 S.W.3d 475.
Brady violations are within the purview of coram
nobis relief, the fact that a petitioner alleges a
Brady violation is not, in itself, a sufficient
basis for the writ. Wallace v. State, 2018 Ark. 164,
545 S.W.3d 767. There are three elements of a Brady
violation: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the
accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is
impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the
State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must
have ensued. Carner v. State, 2018 Ark. 20, 535
S.W.3d 634 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263
(1999)). When a petitioner alleges a Brady violation
as the basis for his or her claim for relief in coram nobis
proceedings, the facts alleged in the petition must establish
that evidence was suppressed that was both material and
prejudicial such as to have prevented rendition of the
judgment had it been known at the time of trial.
Martinez-Marmol v. State, 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d
49. 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 different.
Talley contends that he provided the name of a potential
witness, Javon Allen, to his own trial counsel who, in turn,
provided Allen's name to the prosecutor. Talley further
states that neither his trial counsel nor the prosecutor
revealed the substance of their contact with Allen, and
therefore, Allen's exculpatory evidence was not developed
through discovery and brought to light at trial. Talley does
not describe the exculpatory evidence that Allen would have
provided. Talley also contends that a second witness,
Torrance Deadman, was interviewed by police and provided an
"affirmative defense to all charges." According to
Talley, Deadman's statement to police revealed that
Talley did not commit aggravated robbery with a firearm but
came into possession of "the so-called
victim['s]" vehicle in exchange for drugs. Apart
from his bare allegations, Talley provides no substantiation
for this claim. Furthermore, Talley asserts that his trial
counsel did not subpoena for trial these two witnesses whose
testimony he contends was suppressed in violation of
Brady. This final allegation has rendered
Talley's Brady claim meritless because it
nullifies any basis for an assertion that the prosecution
concealed material evidence from the defense. In sum, Talley
does not state facts that establish a Brady
violation but instead alleges
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, which are not
cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. Osburn v.
State, 2018 ...