JACKIE BREEDEN, JR. PETITIONER
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 04CR-10-1326]
Breeden, Jr., pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
DAN KEMP, CHIEF JUSTICE
Jackie Breeden, Jr., brings this pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to allow him to file a
petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case.
In the petition, Breeden contends that the State withheld
material evidence from the defense by not complying with
pretrial discovery. Withholding evidence from the defense can
constitute a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), which is a ground for coram nobis relief, but
Breeden's claim falls short of establishing that there
was a Brady violation in his case. Accordingly, the
petition is denied.
Nature of the Writ
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. Newman v.
State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. A writ of error
coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v.
Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram nobis
proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the
judgment of conviction is valid. Green v. State,
2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. 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. Newman, 2009 Ark.
539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the burden of
demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the
record. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d
Grounds for the Writ
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. Howard v.
State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
2011, a jury found Breeden guilty of the rape of his minor
child and sentenced him to life imprisonment. We affirmed.
Breeden v. State, 2013 Ark. 145, 427 S.W.3d 5. The
evidence adduced at trial established that Breeden had
engaged in sexual intercourse with his daughter on multiple
occasions before she reached the age of fourteen. When the
child informed her mother of the abuse, the mother contacted
authorities. A medical examination of the child revealed
damage to her hymen that was consistent with sexual
penetration or trauma. When confronted with the accusations,
Breeden admitted engaging in sexual relations with the child
before she reached the age of fourteen.
Claim of a Brady Violation
establish a Brady violation, the petitioner must
satisfy three elements: (1) the evidence at issue must be
favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or
because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been
suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently;
(3) prejudice must have ensued. Howard, 2012 Ark.
177, 403 S.W.3d 38. The mere fact that a petitioner alleges a
Brady violation is not sufficient to provide a basis
for error coram nobis relief. Wallace v. State, 2018
Ark. 164, 545 S.W.3d 767; see also Penn v. State,
282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (A mere naked allegation
that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice
to warrant coram nobis relief.).
alleges that the defense sought access during the pretrial
discovery process to all records and evidence related to the
charges, including all records compiled by the Department of
Human Services ("DHS") during its investigation of
the victim's claim that she was sexually abused. He
contends that the State refused to release the DHS material,
which contained a statement by the victim, ...