Carroll v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-09-255,CR-09-255 |
| Parties | Scorpio Laron CARROLL, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Scorpio Laron Carroll, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner Scorpio Laron Carroll was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 540 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Carroll's conviction and sentence. Carroll v. State , 2009 Ark. App. 610, 2009 WL 3028984. Carroll now brings this pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis in which he contends (1) he was denied a first-appearance hearing to determine probable cause to detain him after his arrest in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (2) his confession was illegally obtained; (3) insufficient evidence supported his conviction; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective. Carroll subsequently also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Because none of Carroll's claims establish a ground for the writ, the petition is denied, rendering the motion for appointment of counsel moot.
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 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.
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 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.
Carroll contends that the State failed to provide him with a probable-cause first-appearance hearing in violation of his constitutional rights.1 He further contends that "[t]his case does not involve the initial arrest, but rather the continuing incarceration of a presumptively innocent person while law enforcement conducts it[ ]s investigation to establish probable cause[,]" which resulted in a coerced statement. Whether Carroll had a prompt first-appearance hearing—or had one at all—is not a matter extrinsic to the record and could have been raised in the trial court. See, e.g. , McClinton v. State , 2015 Ark. 161, 2015 WL 1651311 (per curiam) (). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record, and Carroll has failed to do so. See Roberts , 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.
Moreover, Carroll's claim that the lack of a preliminary first appearance somehow affected the legality of his arrest is unavailing. Even an illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution or an absolute argument against a valid conviction. See Biggers v. State , 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994) ; Singleton v. State , 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974) ().
Carroll claims that the lack of a first-appearance hearing and the ensuing delay for investigative purposes created circumstances under which he made an incriminating statement. Carroll contends that had he been taken before a magistrate and counsel been appointed, he would not have made an incriminating statement that was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. Notably, Carroll does not assert that the facts surrounding his confession were unknown to him at the time of trial. See Martinez-Marmol v. State , 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Carroll's claims are not claims regarding evidence extrinsic to the record. See McCullough v. State , 2020 Ark. 49, 2020 WL 486767. Carroll challenged the admission of his custodial statement by filing in the trial court a motion to suppress in which he claimed the interrogation was illegal because law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest and detain him and that he had not been advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and thus could not give a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right against self-incrimination.2 Carroll's challenge regarding the incriminating statement is not a fact extrinsic to the record that would have prevented rendition of the judgment. See Munnerlyn v. State , 2018 Ark. 161, 545 S.W.3d 207.
Carroll contends there was insufficient evidence that the victim was shot and killed by Carroll. Carroll claims that witness testimony, including the medical examiner's testimony, was inconsistent and that the State presented testimony and evidence that would make Carroll's involvement in the victim's death "patently unbelievable." Claims that attack the sufficiency of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses constitute a direct attack on the judgment and are not within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Joiner v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobbins v. State
...guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution are outside the scope of a coram nobis proceeding. Carroll v. State , 2022 Ark. 6, 636 S.W.3d 761. A petition for the writ is not a substitute for timely raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Arkansas Ru......