Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-15-174,CR-15-174 |
| Citation | 575 S.W.3d 407,2019 Ark. 176 |
| Parties | James JOHNSON III, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
James Johnson III requests this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that it may consider a writ of error coram nobis. Although Johnson titles his motion as one to recall the mandate to seek this writ, he is mistaken in how to title the motion. Instead, we consider the motion for the substantive relief requested and treat it as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. We conclude that Johnson's petition is without merit. Accordingly, we deny relief.
To understand his petition, a brief explanation of the facts is necessary. Charles Gaskins died as a result of an aggravated robbery by two masked men. While investigating the murder scene, a detective was notified that a confidential informant identified Johnson as a suspect. Later that day, the police stopped a car in which Johnson was a passenger. Johnson sat in the back-passenger seat while Johnson's codefendant, Donte Davis, sat in the front-passenger seat. Police arrested both Johnson and Davis. A gun located under Johnson's seat was identified as the murder weapon. Police also confiscated a cell phone that Johnson used to send a text stating that he would be gone for life if caught on "this here charge." Finally, two women passengers in the car implicated Johnson in the murder. Johnson was convicted of capital murder, and this court affirmed. Johnson v. State , 2015 Ark. 387, 472 S.W.3d 486.
In his motion, Johnson primarily disputes the sufficiency of the evidence. He also alleges various trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that he was never identified at the murder scene, that there were defects in a search warrant and some seizures, that the gun found in the car did not belong to him and instead belonged to Rhakelle Brown, and that testimony about the statements he made after returning to the car were admitted in error. Additionally, Johnson asserts claims concerning the lack of aid rendered to the victim, the admission of Brown's testimony without corroboration, testimony from an expert about the identification of the gun as the murder weapon, and another expert's testimony on the lack of DNA evidence.
Johnson also attached an affidavit to his motion from Davis that implicated Brown as Davis's true accomplice in the robbery. In the affidavit, Davis asserts that Johnson had no knowledge of the murder, that Johnson was picked up after the murder, and that both the phone found on Johnson, and the gun found in the car, belonged to Brown. Johnson appears to contend that this affidavit is newly discovered evidence that would exonerate him when considered in connection with alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) arising from the traffic stop that uncovered the murder weapon.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, and coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the conviction is valid. Makkali v. State , 2019 Ark. 17, 565 S.W.3d 472. Fundamentally, the writ is a means of obtaining relief from a judgment when there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known of its existence at the trial. Id. Of course, the concealment of this fact cannot be attributable to the defendant's own negligence, and it is the petitioner's burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id.
The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. These errors fall into one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCullough v. State
...court's ruling was upheld. The writ does not lie to correct trial error or to contradict any fact already adjudicated. Johnson v. State, 2019 Ark. 176, 575 S.W.3d 407. McCullough's allegations regarding an illegal arrest and violations of his right to due process are all matters that were k......
-
Hunt v. State
...to correct some error of fact, and it does not lie to correct trial error or to contradict any fact already adjudicated. Johnson v. State , 2019 Ark. 176, 575 S.W.3d 407. Claims of insufficient evidence and claims of alleged false testimony at trial do not support the writ. Chatmon v. State......
-
Alexander v. State
...Alexander's petition. In short, none of the claims set forth Alexander's petition are sufficiently supported to warrant error coram nobis 575 S.W.3d 407 relief. To prevail in error coram nobis proceedings, a petitioner must show fundamental error sufficient to preclude entry of the judgment......