PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL OF
RECORD [INDEPENDENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 32CR-14-223]
F. WYNNE, Associate Justice
Petitioner Lee Sullivan Ivory was convicted by an
Independence County Circuit Court jury of possession of a
controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and
failure to appear, for which he was sentenced as a habitual
offender to an aggregate term of 504 months imprisonment in
the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). His convictions
and sentence were affirmed. Ivory v. State,
2017 Ark.App. 269, 520 S.W.3d 729. Ivory now brings this pro
se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10
L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), violations occurred based on
prosecutorial misconduct. Because we find that Ivorys claims
do not establish a ground for the writ, the petition is
denied. Accordingly, the motions are moot.
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
771. We are not required to accept the allegations in a
petition for writ of error coram nobis at face value.
Jackson v. State, 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242.
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.
Claims for Issuance of the Writ
contends that there was prosecutorial misconduct that
entitles him to coram nobis relief. Specifically, he contends
that the traffic stop and drugs seized support his claim of a
Brady violation due to the States failure to
produce information that he requested— information
regarding the witnesses credibility— and that the
failure to disclose the requested information impeded his
ability to conduct an effective cross-examination and
threatened his right to confront adverse witnesses. Ivorys
claim fails because he does not allege sufficient facts in
support of his claim of a Brady violation.
establish a Brady violation, three elements are
required: (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; and (3)
prejudice must have ensued. Martinez-Marmol v.
State,2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. When a petitioner
alleges a Brady violation as the basis for his or
her claim of relief in coram nobis ...