Isom v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. CR-17-1003,CR-17-1003 |
Citation | 2018 Ark. 368,563 S.W.3d 533 |
Parties | Kenneth R. ISOM, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Jennifer Horan, Federal Public Defender, by: Julie Vandiver, Ass't Federal Public Defender, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Kenneth Isom appeals an order of the Drew County Circuit Court dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. For reversal, Isom contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in (1) dismissing the petition because the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ; (2) limiting discovery for the evidentiary hearing; and (3) denying his motion for judicial recusal. We affirm.
On the evening of Monday, April 2, 2001, at approximately 7:45 p.m., a man knocked on the door of William "Bill" Burton's trailer home in Monticello, Arkansas. Burton was a seventy-nine-year-old man in the care of his sister-in-law, seventy-one-year-old Dorothy Lawson. Lawson answered the door, and the man pushed his way inside and demanded money. Wielding a pair of broken scissors, the man ordered Burton and Lawson to lie on the floor of the trailer. Burton was stabbed and bludgeoned. Lawson was raped, choked, and beaten. Burton and Lawson were discovered the next morning by a neighbor who called the police. Burton died, and Lawson survived.
Lawson later identified Isom as the attacker in a photographic lineup and again at trial. Two witnesses testified that they saw Isom and Lawson talking outside Burton's residence at around 7:00 p.m. on the night of the crimes. A black hair was recovered from Lawson's vagina during a rape-kit examination. A DNA analyst testified at trial that the profile from the hair was consistent with Isom's and would reoccur once in every 57 million African Americans.
Isom was convicted of capital murder, attempted capital murder, residential burglary, and two counts of rape, and he was sentenced to death for the capital-murder conviction.1 His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Isom v. State , 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004). Subsequently, this court affirmed the denial of Isom's Rule 37 petition and a petition for additional DNA testing. Isom v. State , 2010 Ark. 495, 370 S.W.3d 491 ; Isom v. State , 2010 Ark. 496, 372 S.W.3d 809. Isom later filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Isom v. Hobbs , No. 5:11cv47 BSM, 2011 WL 13318484 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 1, 2011). The federal district court ordered Isom to return to state court to exhaust his state remedies. Order at 6–7, Isom v. Hobbs , No. 5:11CV00047 JLH, 2013 WL 12380240 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 1, 2013).
Isom petitioned this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to allow him to seek a writ of error coram nobis. We reinvested the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider Isom's Brady claims. Isom v. State , 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662.
Isom filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the circuit court on June 12, 2015. The circuit court scheduled a hearing on the petition for December 8–9, 2015. Before the hearing, Isom moved for discovery and for the recusal of the judge. Both motions were denied. In its order denying discovery, the circuit court stated that any witnesses or evidence that counsel needed could be subpoenaed to the hearing. Following the hearing and the submission of posthearing briefs, the circuit court dismissed Isom's petition for writ of error coram nobis. Isom appeals.
Isom contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis because the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Specifically, Isom asserts that the circuit court erred in finding (1) that there was no failed identification on April 4, 2001; (2) that Lawson's equivocation was not suppressed; (3) that a witness's prior statement was not impeaching; and (4) that any suppression was harmless.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that is available in compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address fundamental errors, including Brady violations. See Larimore v. State , 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). 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 that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Martinez-Marmol v. State , 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. The denial of a coram nobis petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Pelletier v. State , 2015 Ark. 432, 474 S.W.3d 500.
Under Brady , the State violates a defendant's right to due process if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant's guilt or punishment. Brady , 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. The duty to disclose exists even when there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and it extends to evidence known only to law enforcement officials and not to the prosecutor, Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995).
A successful Brady claim has three components: (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. Strickler v. Greene , 527 U.S. 263, 281–82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). To assess the prejudice component of the Brady test, courts consider whether the withheld evidence is material. Evidence is material—and its suppression prejudicial—if there is a "reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
In reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider Isom's Brady claims, this court tasked the circuit court with resolving factual disputes raised in Isom's application. When acting as a fact-finder, the circuit court determines the credibility of witnesses, resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in testimony, and assesses the weight to be given the evidence. See Strom v. State , 348 Ark. 610, 74 S.W.3d 233 (2002). We review a circuit court's factual findings for clear error. Cloird v. State , 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Newman v. State , 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789.
Isom asserted in his petition that Lawson was shown two photographic arrays that included his picture: a lineup of stock photographs on April 4, and a poster-sized lineup of enlarged photographs on April 5. He claimed that when Lawson was shown the stock photographs, she failed to identify him as her attacker. The circuit court disagreed.
On appeal, Isom contends that the circuit court erred in finding that there was no failed identification on April 4. To provide context for Isom's arguments and to facilitate the understanding of the issues before us, we quote extensively from the circuit court's order:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bentonville Sch. Dist. v. Sitton
... ... mandating that a judge shall recuse when "the ... judge's impartiality might reasonably be ... questioned." Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. 319, ... at 7, 498 S.W.3d 733, 737.[4] ... Judicial ... recusal must be made "from the perspective of a ... reasonable ... v. United ... States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.) ... Judges are presumed to be impartial. Isom v. State, ... 2018 Ark. 368, at 19, 563 S.W.3d 533, 546; Porter v. Ark ... Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 374 Ark. 177, ... 191, 286 S.W.3d 686, ... ...
-
Bentonville Sch. Dist. v. Sitton
... ... mandating that a judge shall recuse when "the ... judge's impartiality might reasonably be ... questioned." Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. 319, ... at 7, 498 S.W.3d 733, 737.[4] ... Judicial ... recusal must be made "from the perspective of a ... reasonable ... v. United ... States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J.) ... Judges are presumed to be impartial. Isom v. State, ... 2018 Ark. 368, at 19, 563 S.W.3d 533, 546; Porter v. Ark ... Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 374 Ark. 177, ... 191, 286 S.W.3d 686, ... ...
-
Jones v. Payne
...the word "no" is a typographical error, as the court of appeals went on to affirm Jones's conviction and sentence.3 See Isom v. State , 2018 Ark. 368, 563 S.W.3d 533 (typographical error did not otherwise affect the circuit court's reasoning or decision); Springs v. State , 368 Ark. 256, 24......
-
Vaughn v. State
...that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Isom v. State , 2018 Ark. 368, at 4, 563 S.W.3d 533, 538, cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 342, 205 L.Ed.2d 373 (2019) (applying United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 682......