PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND PRO SE
MOTIONS TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR STATUS AND DETERMINATION
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION, NO.
Charles E. Jones, pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.
R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Charles Edward Jones has filed a petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis in which he alleges that there was
exculpatory information that was unknown and not addressed at
trial. Jones subsequently filed a motion "to show cause
for coram nobis" in which he asserts additional bases
for the writ. Jones also filed a motion for status and
determination in which he requested that he be given either
prompt attention to the matter or a status report. Because
Jones provides no meritorious basis for issuance of the writ,
we deny the petition.
motion to show cause is treated as a motion to supplement the
petition to reinvest jurisdiction and denied. The motion for
status is moot.
convicted Jones of four counts of rape, and he was sentenced
to four consecutive terms of 480 months' imprisonment.
His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Arkansas
Court of Appeals. Jones v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 324.
this court is Jones's petition in which he requests
permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for
a writ of error coram nobis to challenge the judgment in that
case. 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.
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 v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 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.
petition, Jones alleges that there was exculpatory
information that was unknown and not addressed at trial.
Jones references three exhibits, which are unidentified
documents that appear to be (1) an excerpt from a pleading in
federal court that referenced a doctor's testimony during
Jones's trial, (2) a portion of a medical report on one
of the minor victims indicating that she had a urinary tract
infection, and (3) an incident report made by a mandated
reporter about the same victim.
the issues on direct appeal of the judgment involved the
admission of a doctor's testimony concerning an
eleven-year-old witness who reported an allegation of rape
against Jones in a separate rape case. This is the same
doctor who was referenced in the first document attached to
Jones's petition. The doctor testified that the witness
had a sexually transmitted disease and detailed how the
disease was contracted to support the witness's testimony
of penetration. Jones, 2010 Ark.App. 324. Here,
Jones contends that there was a "medical issue" in
that one of the minor victims had a urinary tract infection.
Jones never explains how the victim's condition raised an
issue, and it is not clear why Jones contends that the
infection was significant. He draws a contrast between the
victim's "medical issue" and the witness who
had a "medical issue" concerning a sexually
transmitted disease, but he does so without explaining the
significance of the difference. Further, Jones alleges that,
if the information about the victim's infection had been
known,  it would have changed the outcome of the
trial. He appears to contend that the fact that the victim
had the infection was exculpatory and the condition somehow
brought about her allegations of rape, but he does not offer
any further explanation.
has not alleged that the information was withheld from the
defense by the prosecutor or stated facts to support his
claim that the information was "unknown" at the
time of trial. Further, Jones has not demonstrated that the
evidence was material. Generally, newly discovered evidence,
in itself, is not a ground for the writ, and a conclusory
statement that there is newly discovered evidence does not
warrant coram nobis relief. Hall v. State, 2018 Ark.
377, 562 S.W.3d 829. Allegations that are too vague ...