Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 22 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-09-990,CR-09-990 |
| Citation | 2020 Ark. 338,609 S.W.3d 375 |
| Parties | Charles Edward JONES, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Charles E. Jones, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner Charles Edward Jones was convicted by a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury of four counts of rape for which he was sentenced to four consecutive terms of 480 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Jones v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 324, 2010 WL 1509491. Jones brings this pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends that the prosecution withheld material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and that facts were withheld regarding information obtained during the police investigation. Jones subsequently filed a motion "to show cause for coram nobis" in which he asserts additional bases for issuance of the writ. Because none of Jones's claims establish a ground for the writ, the petition is denied. The motion to show cause is treated as a motion to supplement the petition to reinvest and denied.
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.
While a Brady violation comes within the purview of coram nobis relief, the fact that a petitioner alleges a Brady violation is not, in itself, sufficient to provide a basis for the writ. Wallace v. State , 2018 Ark. 164, 545 S.W.3d 767. It is a violation of Brady , and a ground for the writ, if the defense was prejudiced because the State wrongfully withheld evidence from the defense prior to trial. Mosley v. State , 2018 Ark. 152, 544 S.W.3d 55. The Court held in Brady that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. There are three elements of a Brady violation: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued. Carner v. State , 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d 634.
In the petition, Jones contends that he has new evidence to present that was withheld to support a claim of "territorial jurisdiction." Specifically, he contends that the prosecution withheld evidence that disputes the jurisdiction of the trial court, pointing to attached exhibits that include the marriage license of his brother, Henry Lee Jones, to Jacqueline Nash,1 the mother of three of the victims. Although Jones's argument is conclusory, his exhibits appear to have handwritten notes indicating that his contention would be that because Jones and Nash, were not together in 1994, the victims could not have been raped in Arkansas during the time frames alleged in the criminal information. Jones fails to state a basis for issuance of the writ.
Jones has not demonstrated that the evidence was material nor that it was withheld. Jones v. State , 2019 Ark. 340, 588 S.W.3d 33. Jones was aware at the time of trial when and for how long Nash was married to his brother because Nash testified to that period of time and because Jones's own testimony reflected that knowledge.2 Jones would have also known which state he resided in during the time period of the offenses—so that information was not withheld.3 Jones fails to allege any specific facts to support his conclusory claim that the time frame of Nash's marriage was withheld. Hunt v. State , 2019 Ark. 299, 586 S.W.3d 599. A petitioner does not satisfy any ground for granting the writ when he does not present any evidence extrinsic to the record that was hidden from the defense or that was unknown at the time of trial. Scott v. State , 2019 Ark. 94, 571 S.W.3d 451.
Jones claims that information was withheld "by Investigative Police Det[ective] D. Kirby Wright of alleged count one that [Jones] was being investigate[d] by Det[ective] Chris Ganns[, her partner,] the same time in the same week." Jones references exhibits with handwritten notes. However, the argument and the exhibits do little to shed any light on the nature of Jones's argument apart from a reference to R.A., who testified at Jones's trial regarding an allegation of rape against Jones in a separate case.
Allegations that are too vague and lack the requisite factual support do not support issuance of the writ. Alexander v. State , 2019 Ark. 171, 575 S.W.3d 401. Jones's claim is unclear. However, giving latitude to his reference in the attached exhibits to R.A.—who testified about an occasion in which Jones played "spin the bottle" with her and "hunched" her—any question whether Jones was investigated regarding any rape of R.A. and its effect on his being charged and convicted of the rape of another victim is of no moment. Whether he was investigated or not was not evidence that was withheld from the defense, as Jones would have known whether he had been investigated for another rape or sex-related offense for which he either had or had not been charged. See Joiner v. State , 2020 Ark. 126, 596 S.W.3d 7 ().
In his motion to show cause, Jones seeks to add claims that the prosecution and police withheld evidence involving the concealment of exculpatory and impeaching information concerning the time and a date of the "visit on the medical material document about March 28th, 2007[,] and the confidential police report stating a different date of the offense on about February 20th, 2007[.]" As supporting documentation, Jones includes a portion of a patient educational form for one of the minor victims indicating she had a urinary tract infection
, a supplemental report taken from the same victim, and an incident report made by a mandated reporter about the same victim. Jones specifically contends it is a violation of due process for this court to refuse to consider the above-noted evidence in assessing the trustworthiness of the declarant's report4 and that the withholding of this information makes the key State witnesses5 substantially less credible.
Jones raised essentially this claim in his first coram nobis petition that was found to be a conclusory claim made without further explanation. Jones , 2019 Ark. 340, 588 S.W.3d 33. Albeit, Jones utilizes additional documentation along with the patient educational form and now further elaborates that the use of the information would have affected the outcome of his trial in that it would have impacted the credibility of the witnesses. Jones's claim remains vague and lacks the requisite factual support to support issuance of the writ. Alexander , 2019 Ark. 171, 575 S.W.3d 401. Jones fails to establish that the evidence is material, i.e., the significance of the victim's urinary tract infection
and how that correlates to his conclusory contention regarding a different offense date,6 or that the information was withheld from the defense. Moreover, claims that attack the sufficiency of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFerrin v. State
...does not present any evidence extrinsic to the record that was hidden from the defense or unknown at the time of trial. Jones v. State , 2020 Ark. 338, 609 S.W.3d 375. Although McFerrin claims he was unaware that Hayward would testify, the fact that Hayward did testify at trial is not extri......
-
Jones v. Payne
...information. This court determined that Jones failed to state a basis for issuance of the writ and denied the petition. Jones v. State , 2020 Ark. 338, 609 S.W.3d 375.On March 19, 2020, Jones filed in the Chicot County Circuit Court, the county where he is incarcerated, the pro se petition ......
-
Wells v. State
...present evidence extrinsic to the record that the State withheld from the defense or was unknown at the time of trial. Jones v. State , 2020 Ark. 338, 609 S.W.3d 375. Wells does not allege facts about his confession or the witness testimony that were unknown to him at the time of trial. See......
-
Williams v. State
...credibility of witnesses constitute a direct attack on the judgment and are not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. Jones v. State , 2020 Ark. 338, 609 S.W.3d 375. Finally, Williams contends that he was denied due process and a fair trial because the evidence presented at trial was inco......