Mitchell v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 4984,4984
• Citation: 232 Ark. 371,337 S.W.2d 663
• Parties: Lonnle B. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 663

337 S.W.2d 663

232 Ark. 371

Lonnle B. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 4984.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 6, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1960.

Thad D. Williams and Christopher C. Mercer, Jr., Little Rock, for appellant.

Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., By: Bill J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

On the 11th day of April, 1959, appellant, Lonnie B. Mitchell, was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. On appeal to this Court the judgment was affirmed on September 21, 1959. Mitchell v. State, Ark., 327 S.W.2d 384. On January 14, 1960, appellant filed in the Union Circuit Court, where he was originally tried, a motion to vacate the judgment. This is an appeal from an order overruling the motion.

It is alleged in the motion that appellant is a Negro and that it is the custom and practice in Arkansas to sentence Negro men to death for raping white women, but that white men are not sentenced to death for rape; that Negroes were systematically excluded from the jury which tried him; that he is an ignorant youth (he was 23 years of age at the time); that he did not have access to effective assistance of counsel; that a purported confession made by appellant was coerced and not voluntary; that at the time of the trial he was insane and not mentally present at the trial; that he was insane at the time of the commission of the rape; that he is presently insane; and that he was denied an examination by a private psychiatrist prior to his trial. Nothing is alleged in the motion that was not or could not have been raised on appeal in the first instance except the allegation of present insanity.

In affirming the original judgment, this Court said: 'We have carefully examined the entire record. The appellant had a fair trial free from error.' The judgment was affirmed and the mandate issued. In these circumstances the trial court did not have jurisdiction to set aside the judgment. In the case of Fortenberry v. Frazier et al., 5 Ark. 200, this Court said: 'The Supreme Court, except where bills of review, in cases of equity, and writs in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, in suits at law, may be prosecuted, possesses no power to review, revise, or reform its adjudications and opinions after the expiration of the term in which they are pronounced and recorded, unless they are suspended by an order made at that term; and they irrevocably conclude the rights of the parties thereby adjudicated. Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the judgment or decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. The inferior court cannot vary it, or judicially examine it for any other purpose than execution. It can give no other or further relief as to any matter...