Jackson v. State , 497 S.W.3d 685 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 294
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CR-03-1127
ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON Opinion Delivered July 21, 2016
APPELLANT PRO SE FOURTH PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
V. CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF ARKANSAS NO. 60CR-01-4006]
APPELLEE PETITION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Anarian Chad Jackson was found guilty, after a jury trial, of second-degree
murder, for which he was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment. Jackson’s conviction
and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Jackson v. State, CR-03-1127 (Ark. App. Dec. 1,
2004) (unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 03-1127). On May 10, 2016, Jackson filed
this, his fourth petition requesting this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. 1
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 v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The
1
For clerical purposes, the motion was assigned the same docket number as the direct
appeal.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 294
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.
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
to address 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.
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, 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. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4, 456 S.W.3d 374,
376.
Jackson seeks leave to proceed in the trial court for a writ of error coram nobis,
claiming that there is newly discovered evidence that the prosecution wrongfully withheld
evidence about a deal that was made between the prosecution and the State’s witness,
Ammar Mahdi, in exchange for Mahdi’s testimony at Jackson’s trial. Jackson contends he
was unaware at the time of trial that Mahdi’s statements that he received no “help from the
State in his sentencing proceeding was demonstrably untrue and the State knew it was
untrue.” He further contends that he received this information in an affidavit from Mahdi
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 294
“less than twelve months before he filed [t]his petition.” Notwithstanding his contention
to the contrary, Jackson also states that on the day of trial his defense counsel was made
aware of a transcript from Mahdi’s sentencing proceeding that had not previously been
provided to his counsel.
Jackson has raised this claim in three previous petitions requesting this court to
reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. 2
In Jackson v. State, CR 03–1127 (Ark. Dec. 11, 2008) (unpublished per curiam) (original
docket no. CACR 03-1127), Jackson alleged, as he does now, that evidence was withheld
by the prosecutor regarding Mahdi’s sentencing, which violated his right to due process as
guaranteed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This court noted that Jackson failed
to demonstrate due diligence in seeking error coram nobis relief because he was aware of
the facts concerning Mahdi at his trial. 3 This court concluded that the court of appeals
decision on direct appeal noted that Jackson was in possession of a copy of the transcript
from Mr. Mahdi's sentencing hearing during the trial and that Jackson was aware of the
2
Jackson sought the same relief, coram-nobis relief, because he claimed he was unable
to adequately impeach Mahdi’s and another witness’s testimony at trial because evidence
was withheld regarding Mahdi’s sentencing and a deal made in exchange for Mahdi’s
testimony. Jackson’s third petition seeking coram-nobis relief was denied by syllabus entry
on April 21, 2011.
3
While there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due
diligence is required in making an application for relief and in the absence of a valid excuse
for delay, the petition will be denied. Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005).
Due diligence requires satisfaction of certain conditions, as follows: (1) that the defendant
be unaware of the fact at the time of trial; (2) that the defendant could not have, in the
exercise of due diligence, presented the fact at trial; (3) that upon discovering the fact, the
defendant did not delay bringing the petition. Id.
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. 294
alleged fundamental error of fact at that time and had an opportunity to seek correction of
the error more than five years previously. 4 In Jackson v. State, 2009 Ark. 572, at 1–2 (per
curiam), this court again addressed the same claim regarding assertions that the prosecution
withheld evidence concerning information about deals made with two witnesses, including
Mahdi. This court held that Jackson’s “successive application for coram nobis relief in this
court [wa]s an abuse of the writ. [Jackson] alleges few, if any new facts, and he does not
allege any fact sufficient to distinguish his latest claims. The issues are the same.” Jackson,
2009 Ark. 572, at 2.
In this present petition, Jackson again fails to allege any fact sufficient to distinguish
his claim from his three prior attempts to seek coram nobis relief. Although he submits a
2013 affidavit signed by Mahdi as “new evidence,” Jackson still offers only conclusory
statements maintaining that information was withheld and fails to state any facts in support
of his contention that the State did withhold evidence concerning the existence of an alleged
agreement with the witness, Mahdi. Clearly, contrary to Jackson’s claim that he was
unaware of any agreement made with, or leniency given to, Mahdi in exchange for Mahdi’s
testimony against Jackson, Jackson was aware of Mahdi’s sentencing at the time of his trial.
4
In his direct appeal, Jackson argued that the trial court erred when it refused to allow
him to put on an impeachment witness, the prosecutor, whose testimony would have
contradicted Mahdi’s testimony that he received no help from the State in his sentencing.
Jackson, CR-03-1127, slip op. at 4–5. The court of appeals found that the trial court offered
Jackson the opportunity to recall Mahdi for a second cross-examination, which was refused,
and that Jackson was in possession of a copy of the transcript from Mahdi’s sentencing
hearing and chose only to proffer the transcript in lieu of offering the transcript into
evidence, which resulted in the matter not going before the jury. Id.
4
Cite as 2016 Ark. 294
As noted in the previous opinions, the writ is appropriate only when an issue was not
addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or
unknown. Jackson, 2009 Ark. 572, at 6 (citing Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d
818 (1997)).
After examining the claims raised in this fourth petition, we conclude that Jackson’s
successive application for coram-nobis relief in this court is an abuse of the writ in that he
alleges no fact sufficient to distinguish his claims in the instant petition from the claims raised
in his previous petitions. Jackson did not establish in his three prior petitions that there was
any basis for the writ, and his reassertion of largely the same claims in the fourth petition is
a misuse of the remedy. See Smith v. State, 2015 Ark. 188, 461 S.W.3d 345 (per curiam).
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. See Rodgers v. State, 2013 Ark. 294, at 3–4 (per
curiam) (“[A] court has the discretion to determine whether the renewal of a petitioner’s
application for the writ, when there are additional facts presented in support of the same
grounds, will be permitted.”). Due process does not require this court to entertain an
unlimited number of petitions to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition
for writ of error coram nobis in a particular case. Swanigan v. State, 2016 Ark. 109 (per
curiam).
Petition dismissed.
5