McClinton v. State

2020 Ark. 153

597 S.W.3d 647

Edmond MCCLINTON, Petitioner

v.STATE of Arkansas, Respondent

No. CR-14-1060

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: April 23, 2020

Edmond McClinton, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.

KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

Petitioner Edmond McClinton is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction serving a life sentence for raping a mentally handicapped sixteen-year-old girl. McClinton appealed the conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment. McClinton v. State , 2015 Ark. 245, 464 S.W.3d 913. While the appeal was pending, McClinton filed a pro se petition asking this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis that this court denied. McClinton v. State , 2015 Ark. 161, 2015 WL 1651311 (per curiam). In that petition, McClinton alleged a number of errors in the trial procedure, including errors in the trial court’s sentencing procedure and its rulings on motions and the lack of a first appearance and other initial hearings. McClinton filed a second petition requesting permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and, in it, he raises a different basis for the writ. McClinton alleges violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), in his latest petition seeking to reinvest jurisdiction to file a petition for the writ. Because McClinton’s proposed attack on the judgment has no merit, we deny the second petition to reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis proceedings.

McClinton’s proposed basis for the writ is not completely clear, but he appears to assert that Brady violations occurred because the prosecution withheld two documents he attached as exhibits to the petition, one that appears to be a "LIMS-Plus Data Change Request" form from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and another that appears to be an "ER Flowsheet" for the rape victim’s admission to a medical center on the date of the rape. McClinton also attached two internal chain-of-custody reports that appear to have been generated on the date of the data-change-request form and an evidence-submission form from the crime lab, as well as an affidavit and form indicating that the medical center provided the flowsheet to the prosecution. McClinton asserts that the document from the crime lab demonstrates that "the DNA evidence had been switched out" and that the hospital report states there were no signs of sexual intercourse. He contends that if the documents had been disclosed to the defense, he would not have been convicted.

A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, and coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Martin v. State , 2019 Ark. 167, 574 S.W.3d 661. 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. Id.

The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Wade v. State , 2019 Ark. 196, 575 S.W.3d 552. It is available to address errors 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. Id.

The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Jefferson v. State , 2019 Ark. 408, 591 S.W.3d 310. This court will reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider error coram nobis relief only when the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious, and in making this determination, we look to the reasonableness of the allegations in the petition and to the probability of the truth thereof. Davis v. State , 2019 Ark. 172, 574 S.W.3d 666. This court is not required to accept at face value the allegations in the petition, and the burden is on the petitioner in the...