Breeden v. State

          PRO SE 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]

          Jackie Breeden, Jr., pro se appellant.

          Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

          JOHN DAN KEMP, CHIEF JUSTICE

         Petitioner 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.

         I. Nature of the Writ

         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. 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 771.

         II. Grounds for the Writ

         The 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.

         III. Background

         In 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.

         IV. Claim of a Brady Violation

         To 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.).

         Breeden 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, ...