Grant v. State , 2014 Ark. 466 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. 466
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-03-1181
Opinion Delivered November 6, 2014
ABRAHAM GRANT PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
PETITIONER JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
V. FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION
STATE OF ARKANSAS [PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RESPONDENT NO. 54CR-01-272]
PETITION DENIED; REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2003, petitioner Abraham Grant was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and
battery in the first degree. An aggregate sentence of life imprisonment without parole was
imposed. We affirmed. Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004).
In 2007, petitioner filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief in which he
alleged that his sentence for capital murder should be corrected because he had been charged
with first-degree murder. The petition was denied, and petitioner appealed to this court. We
dismissed the appeal. Grant v. State, CR-07-784 (Ark. Feb. 17, 2008) (unpublished per curiam).
We noted in the opinion that, while the warrant for appellant’s arrest does list first-degree
murder as the offense, the information charging appellant contained in the record on direct
appeal clearly states the correct offense of capital murder. Accordingly, appellant was charged
with capital murder in the information and convicted of capital murder.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 466
Now before us is petitioner’s request that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
so that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 Petitioner also seeks an
injunction to “stay administrative statue [sic] enforcement in all cases where applications are
made in this state having jurisdiction thereof to enforce any statue [sic] or order of an
administrative board or commission of this state. . . .” The request is not clear, but it appears
to be based on the claim in the coram-nobis petition that petitioner was charged with first-degree
murder rather than capital murder. Because we find that petitioner has not stated a cause to
reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, the
request for an injunction arising out of the coram-nobis proceeding is moot.
Petitioner contends in his petition that the writ should issue on the ground that the arrest
warrant in his case stated that he was charged with first-degree murder, but he was convicted of
capital murder. This is the same issue already addressed by this court in the appeal in 2008 and
settled. Petitioner, however, adds in the instant petition the claim that the prosecution withheld
from the jury in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) the fact that the arrest warrant
had shown that he was charged with first-degree murder.
Failure of the State to disclose evidence favorable to the defense in violation of Brady, if
established, is cause to grant the writ. Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (per curiam). Petitioner,
however, has not established that the State somehow withheld the arrest warrant from the
defense at the time of trial. The warrant was a part of the trial record, as were the information
1
The petition was assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal. It is the second
petition filed by petitioner in this court. The first was filed in 2010 and denied. Grant v. State,
2010 Ark. 286, 365 S.W.3d 894 (per curiam).
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. 466
and the subsequent judgment-and-commitment order. The warrant, which was issued by the
trial court, was a matter of public record. Petitioner has offered nothing to show that the
defense could not have obtained the arrest warrant at the time of trial.
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 judgment. McFerrin v. State, 2012 Ark. 305 (per curiam); Cloird v. State, 2011 Ark.
303 (per curiam). The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact
extrinsic to the record. Wright v. State, 2014 Ark. 25 (per curiam); Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541
(per curiam). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment
of conviction is valid. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771; Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571,
670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)). Petitioner
here has not shown that the arrest warrant was concealed from the defense or that there was any
fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record in his case. He has not met his burden of
establishing that there is a ground for the writ.
Petition denied; request for injunction moot.
Abraham Grant, pro se petitioner.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.
3