Moten v. State

• Decision Date: 21 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. CR–10–980,CR–10–980
• Citation: 479 S.W.3d 546
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert Joseph Moten, Petitioner v. State of Arkansas, Respondent.

479 S.W.3d 546

Robert Joseph Moten, Petitioner

v.State of Arkansas, Respondent.

No. CR–10–980

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered January 21, 2016

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Robert Joseph Moten is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction pursuant to a 2010 judgment reflecting his convictions on one count of first-degree battery and one count of second-degree battery with an aggregate sentence of 264 months' imprisonment imposed on the two counts. On September 24, 2015, he filed a petition asking this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Moten later filed an amended petition, which he apparently wishes to substitute for the earlier petition. He also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing in the matter, which is intended as a supplement to Moten's amended petition. We therefore treat the amended petition as a substituted petition and the motion for hearing as an amended petition, and we deny the petitions.

A prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court. Noble v. State, 2015 Ark. 141, 460 S.W.3d 774. Where the record for the underlying proceedings remains in this court, the circuit court is deprived of jurisdiction, and leave from this court is required before the circuit court may consider a petition for the writ. Id. This court will grant permission to proceed with a petition for the writ only when it appears, looking to the reasonableness of the allegations of the proposed petition and the existence of the probability of the truth of those allegations, that the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Isom v. State, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662. This court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Venn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984).

Error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. White v. State, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285. The remedy is exceedingly narrow and appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown. Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469, 192 S.W.3d 248 (2004). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition had it been known to the trial court and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285.

Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374. This court has recognized four categories of error for which the writ is available: (1) insanity at the time of trial; (2) a coerced guilty plea; (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor; (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Noble, 2015 Ark. 141, 460 S.W.3d 774. The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285.

A brief summary of the facts established by the evidence presented at trial is necessary to understand the issues that Moten raises in his petition. The trial testimony established that Iesha Timmons and Curtis Abrams were at a club in Stuttgart for a birthday party. Moten's friend, Jonathan Jones, approached Timmons while she was dancing. Timmons pushed Jones away when he placed his hands down the back of her pants. Abrams intervened, and Jones ended up on the floor with Abrams standing over him. At this point, Moten came up behind Abrams. Timmons saw Moten striking Abrams, and she pulled Moten away. She then realized that her arm was cut. Abrams had been stabbed in the back, the side, and the buttocks with a knife. Timmons's wounds

were not serious, but Abrams's were. His wounds required hospitalization and surgery.

Moten was convicted at a bench trial, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Moten v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 417, 2011 WL 2141382. Moten unsuccessfully pursued postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015), and this court affirmed the denial of relief. Moten v. State, 2013 Ark. 503, 2013 WL 6327549 (per curiam).

In his petitions, Moten alleges that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), as his proposed grounds for the writ. Specifically, he points to an incident report filed by police officer Allison Davis, an affidavit stating facts to support probable cause for his arrest warrant, and Jones's criminal history as evidence that he alleges the State suppressed.

To establish a Brady violation by the State as grounds for coram-nobis relief, the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. Isom, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662. Assuming that the evidence otherwise meets the requirements of a Brady violation, and is both material and prejudicial, the withheld evidence must also have been such as to have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial, that is, the petitioner must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, had the information been disclosed at trial. See Camp v. State,...