Noble v. State , 2015 Ark. LEXIS 335 ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-00-587
Opinion Delivered May 14, 2015
LEONARD NOBLE PRO SE SECOND PETITION TO
PETITIONER REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE
TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A
V. PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS
[SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT
STATE OF ARKANSAS COURT, GREENWOOD DISTRICT,
RESPONDENT NO. 66CR-98-72]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 1999, petitioner Leonard Noble was found guilty by a jury of residential burglary and
rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate sentence of 900 months’
imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Noble v. State, CR-00-587 (Ark. App.
Sept. 19, 2001) (original docket no. CACR 00-587).
In 2014, petitioner filed in this court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition for leave to proceed in
the trial court was 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.
Slocum v. State, 2014 Ark. 398, 442 S.W.3d 858 (per curiam) (citing Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635,
37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam)). A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare
remedy. Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (per curiam). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended
by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251
 Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
(per curiam). 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. Id. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental
error of fact extrinsic to the record. Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (per curiam).
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address
errors of the most fundamental nature. Cromeans, 2013 Ark. 273. 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. Wright
v. State, 2014 Ark. 25 (per curiam); Greene, 2013 Ark. 251.
In the coram-nobis petition filed in 2014, petitioner alleged that the State had withheld
evidence favorable to the defense. We denied the petition. Noble v. State, 2014 Ark. 332, 439
S.W.3d 47 (per curiam).
Now before us is petitioner’s second pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, petitioner first makes
the statement that he has had mental problems from an early age and that he tried to commit
suicide in 1985. As proof of his mental condition, he has appended to the petition the affidavit
of a person who avers that she believes that petitioner has mental problems. She notes that
petitioner’s father was killed in an accident when petitioner was a young child, that petitioner
tried to pull his father from his casket, and that he would not eat or talk and had to be taken to
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
a doctor.
While insanity at the time of trial is a ground for the writ, the burden is on the petitioner
who claims a history of mental defect or illness to overcome the strong presumption that the
judgment was valid. Hooper v. State, 2015 Ark. 108 (per curiam). If the allegation can be said to
be an assertion of insanity at the time of trial, petitioner has presented no facts sufficient to
demonstrate that there was information not known at the time of trial, or which could not have
been known at the time of trial, that could have established that he was incompetent to proceed.
The application for coram-nobis relief must make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon
as the basis for the writ. Millsap v. State, 2014 Ark. 493, 449 S.W.3d 701(per curiam). Neither
petitioner’s mere statement that he suffered from mental problems from a young age nor the
affidavit stating the affiant’s belief that petitioner has mental problems demonstrates
incompetence at the time of trial. See Mackey v. State, 2014 Ark. 491 (per curiam).
Petitioner also argues that the trial court erred in not ordering a psychological evaluation
and holding a hearing on his mental condition. He further contends that the trial court erred
in not allowing the defense to hire an expert witness to examine the physical evidence adduced
at trial. As support for the allegations, he cites testimony adduced at trial that he alleges was
contradictory and insufficient to support a finding of his guilt.
The contention that the trial court made errors at trial does not fall within one of the four
categories warranting coram-nobis relief. Lukach v. State, 2014 Ark. 51 (per curiam). To the
extent that the assertions concerning the strength of the evidence at trial could be considered
a claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment, issues concerning the
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
sufficiency of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses are not cognizable in coram-nobis
proceedings. Chestang v. State, 2014 Ark. 477 (per curiam). Those issues are to be settled at trial,
and, when appropriate, on the record on direct appeal. Sims v. State, 2012 Ark. 458 (per curiam).
Petitioner next asserts that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. The
wrongful withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense is a violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and a ground for granting the writ. Hooper, 2015 Ark. 108. The
United States Supreme Court held in Brady that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt
or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S.
at 87. In Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), the Court revisited Brady and declared that
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.” 527 U.S. at 280 (quoting
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). 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. Strickler, 527 U.S. 263; Watts v. State, 2013 Ark.
485 (per curiam).
Petitioner contends that the State withheld evidence that had been requested by the
defense in a motion for discovery. Although petitioner mentions several types of scientific
testing in the petition, he focuses entirely on the result of hair analysis and information obtained
from the medical examination of the victim. With respect to the hair evidence, petitioner
4
Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
focuses particularly on a hair labeled by the police as “Q-11,” that petitioner alleges would have
shown that he was innocent. As proof of the significance of Q-11, petitioner cites to portions
of trial testimony wherein the results of the testing on the hairs, including Q-11, was discussed.
He complains that the jury never got to hear some pertinent evidence about the testing. As Q-
11 and the testing on the other hairs was specifically referred to at trial, it is plain that the results
of the testing on the hairs was known at trial. Petitioner has not shown that there was evidence
pertaining to it withheld by the State at the time of trial.
The medical evidence, which petitioner alleges was suppressed, is a medical report and
a doctor’s statement. He contends that the report, if believed, would have proven that the
victim was not raped. While petitioner states that the report and the doctor’s statement were
withheld, he indicates that both were available at trial. Instead of offering proof to demonstrate
that the report and statement were unknown to the defense at the time of trial, he contends that
the clothes seized from his car did not belong to him and that no witness for the prosecution
could identify him as the perpetrator of the crime. Careful reading of the petition reveals that
petitioner, rather than arguing that the evidence was hidden from the defense, argues that the
State did not present the evidence fairly and in the light most favorable to the defense. As such,
petitioner’s claim is one of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment and, as stated,
not within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding.
Finally, petitioner asks this court to decide if an effective attorney would have asked a
witness a particular question at trial. To the degree that petitioner is asking this court to
determine whether he was afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial, allegations of
5
Cite as 2015 Ark. 215
ineffective assistance of counsel are properly raised in a timely petition under Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 37.1. The issue is not a ground for relief on a petition for writ of error
coram nobis. Hooper, 2015 Ark. 108. A request for the writ is not a substitute for raising an
allegation under the Rule. Mackey, 2014 Ark. 491.
Petition denied.
6