Jackson v. State, 2010 Ark. 81 (Ark. 2/18/2010)
| Decision Date | 18 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 03-800.,CR 03-800. |
| Citation | 2010 Ark. 81 |
| Parties | ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Page 1
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent.
Pro Se Petition to Reinvest Jurisdiction in the Trial Court to Consider A Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, Amended Petition, and Second Amendment to Petition [Circuit Court of Pulaski County, CR 2001-1009].
Petition and Amended Petitions Denied.
PER CURIAM.
In 2002, a jury found petitioner Anarian Chad Jackson guilty of first-degree murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. This court affirmed. Jackson v. State, 359 Ark. 297, 197 S.W.3d 468 (2004). In 2008, petitioner filed a petition in this court seeking to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis as to this conviction.1 The basis for issuance of the writ in that petition was that the prosecution had suppressed evidence concerning the testimony of certain witnesses by eliciting false testimony and withholding impeaching evidence that included evidence of State deals with
Page 2
the witnesses in exchange for testimony, and information concerning the guns that were alleged to have been used in the shooting. This court denied the petition. Jackson v. State, 2009 Ark. 176 (unpublished per curiam).
Petitioner has filed a new petition requesting that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.2 He later filed an amended petition and a second amendment to the petition. In this new petition, petitioner again alleges prosecutorial misconduct based upon allegations that the prosecution elicited false testimony and concealed impeachment evidence of a deal with a witness, the circumstances surrounding the witnesses statements, and the circumstances concerning a gun that potentially fired the fatal bullet. He also alleges that there was a confession to the crime by another party and that there is exculpatory evidence not previously discovered. In the amended petitions, petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective and asserts that evidence of recanted testimony of the witnesses provides grounds for the writ. We deny the petition and amended petition because petitioner fails to provide any grounds upon which the writ could issue.
To the extent that petitioner alleges prosecutorial misconduct and that the prosecution withheld evidence, his claims are an abuse of the writ; we will not exercise our discretion to permit renewal of petitioner's previous application because petitioner fails to state additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ. See Jackson v. State, 2009 Ark. 572 (per curiam) (although claim preclusion does not apply to coram nobis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ligon v. Stilley
-
Burks v. State
...of the writ and newly discovered information which might have created an issue to be raised at trial had it been known. Jacksonv v. State, 2010 Ark. 81 (per curiam) (citing Mosley v. State, 333 Ark. 273, 968 S.W.2d 612 (1998) (per curiam)); see also Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d ......
-
Wallace v. State
...in an error-coram-nobis proceeding. Anderson v. State , 2012 Ark. 270, 423 S.W.3d 20 (per curiam) (citing Jackson v. State , 2010 Ark. 81, 2010 WL 1006491 (per curiam)); Smith v. State , 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (1940) (holding that the writ was not available to afford relief on the gro......
-
McArthur v. State
...in an error-coram-nobis proceeding. Anderson v. State, 2012 Ark. 270, 423 S.W.3d 20 (per curiam) (citing Jackson v. State, 2010 Ark. 81, 2010 WL 1006491 (per curiam)); Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (1940) (holding that the writ was not available to afford relief on the ground......