Mckinney v. State

• Decision Date: 12 November 2021
• Docket Number: CR-18-546
• Citation: 2021 Ark. 210
• Parties: KWASI MCKINNEY PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2021 Ark. 210

KWASI MCKINNEY PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

No. CR-18-546

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 12, 2021

PRO SE FOURTH PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 14CR-16-35]

Kwasi McKinney, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice

Petitioner Kwasi McKinney brings this pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in thetrial court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case. It is the fourth such petition filed by McKinney in this court. In the petition, McKinney alleges that the writ should issue because (1) he was mentally ill at the time of trial because he was forced to go to trial with a defense attorney who admitted that he (counsel) was not ready for trial; (2) his trial attorney did not afford him effective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial court erred by not permitting counsel to withdraw before trial and by not holding a hearing on the prejudice that McKinney suffered by not being able to communicate with counsel; (4) his inability to communicate with counsel amounted to a conflict of interest that prevented him from having a rational or factual understanding of the trial proceedings, and thus, he was rendered incompetent to stand trial. Because the claims raised by McKinney do not establish

1

a ground for the writ, the petition is denied.

I. Nature of the Writ

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.

II. Grounds for the Writ

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.

2

III. Background

In 2016, a jury found McKinney guilty of multiple drug-related offenses.^[1] An aggregate sentence of 1848 months' imprisonment was imposed. In 2018, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed McKinney's convictions for delivery and possession of methamphetamine. ...