Hoover v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 02-1150,CR 02-1150 |
| Citation | 2012 Ark. 136 |
| Parties | ROBERT HOOVER PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2001-07]
PETITION DENIED.
Robert Hoover, the petitioner, requests that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner seeks relief from a judgment reflecting two life sentences on his convictions for capital murder in the death of James Wesley Masters and aggravated robbery. Petitioner states no valid basis for the writ, and we deny the petition.
Petitioner sets out three bases for the writ in the petition: (1) the prosecution withheld evidence of a deal with his codefendant; (2) the prosecution wrote the judge in his case and interfered with an ordered mental evaluation; (3) the sentence imposed violated double jeopardy, and the State failed to prove the charge of aggravated robbery. Only one of the three claims is of the ilk that may be cognizable in proceedings for the writ, and that claim is without merit.
Petitioner correctly seeks leave from this court in order to file a petition in the circuit court. The petition in this court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after this courtgrants permission. Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam). Petitioner's judgment was affirmed on appeal. Hoover v. State, 353 Ark. 424, 108 S.W.3d 618 (2003).
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (per curiam); Whitham v. State, 2011 Ark. 28 (per curiam); Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Coley v. State, 2011 Ark. 540 (per curiam). The remedy is exceedingly narrow and appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. Hogue v. State, 2011 Ark. 496 (per curiam); McCoy v. State, 2011 Ark. 13 (per curiam). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Biggs v. State, 2011 Ark. 304 (per curiam).
To warrant a writ of error coram nobis, a petitioner has the burden of bringing forth some fact, extrinsic to the record, that was not known at the time of trial. Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam). This court has previously recognized that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address errors found in four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (per curiam). Only the first basis that petitioner asserts in the petition falls within one of the previously recognized categories; that claim alleged that the prosecution had withheld evidence of petitioner's codefendant's deal.
In order for a claim to merit relief, the asserted error must involve previously hidden facts that raise a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, if those facts had been available at trial. Williams, 2011 541; Hogue, 2011 Ark. 496; Biggs, 2011 Ark. 304; Sanders v. State, 2011 Ark. 199 (per curiam); see also Buckley v. State, 2010 Ark. 154 (per curiam); State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). The facts that petitioner alleges were withheld—information concerning a deal struck by the prosecution with petitioner's then-girlfriend, who was also involved in the crime—would not have provided evidence that might have been effective for impeachment purposes or used in petitioner's trial defense. Petitioner does not assert that the information would have been used for such a purpose, and petitioner's codefendant did not testify at petitioner's trial.
Instead, petitioner contends that, if his codefendant was offered a deal with a lesser sentence than the one that he received, then he should also have been offered a matching plea agreement. Petitioner, however, offers no authority or persuasive argument to support his position that the prosecution was required under those circumstances to offer him any plea agreement. Where it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well taken, we have made it clear that we will not address those arguments that are presented without citation to authority or convincing argument. Pinder v. State, 2012 Ark. 45 (per curiam); Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. 435, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429, ___ S.W.3d ___; Boivin v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 384 (per curiam); Whiteside v. State, 2011 Ark. 371, ___ S.W.3d ___; Moore v. State, 2011 Ark. 269 (per curiam); Sweet v. State, 2011 Ark. 20, ___ S.W.3d ___; McCraney v. State, 2010 Ark. 96, ___ S.W.3d ___; Britt v. State, 2009 Ark. 569, 349 S.W.3d 290(per curiam); Strong v. State, 374 Ark. 404, 277 S.W.3d 159 (2008).
More importantly, even assuming that petitioner's allegations had any merit and a plea offer would have been required, there would nevertheless have been a judgment against petitioner for the crimes, albeit on a guilty plea. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the allegedly withheld evidence would have had any effect upon his trial or that the judgment in this case would not have been rendered or would have been prevented if the facts had been known.
The two remaining claims—those allegations about the prosecutor's letter referencing the mental evaluations and the allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mooney v. State
...in the trial court to pursue the writ. See Jackson v. State, 2014 Ark. 347, 439 S.W.3d 675 (per curiam); Hoover v. State, 2012 Ark. 136, 2012 WL 1036114 (per curiam).Finally, petitioner claims that she is entitled to coram-nobis relief because she was unable to aid in her defense or underst......
-
Watts v. State
...facts that were notknown at the time of trial or that were not included in the record pertaining to that claim. See Hoover v. State, 2012 Ark. 136 (per curiam). Moreover, we have previously addressed this same issue in appellant's previous appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate his 1999......
-
Jackson v. State
...issuance of the writ, and provides no basis to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue the writ. See Hoover v. State, 2012 Ark. 136,2012 WL 1036114 (per curiam); see also Hall v. State, 2013 Ark. 404, 2013 WL 5596282 (per curiam) (holding that claims that could have been raised a......
-
Davis v. State
...(per curiam). A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Hoover v. State, 2012 Ark. 136 (per curiam); Coley v. State, 2011 Ark. 540 (per curiam); Pinder v. State, 2011 Ark. 401 (per curiam); Rayford v. State, 2011 Ark. 86 (per......