Mitchael v. State

2020 Ark. 336

RODNEY LEE MITCHAEL PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

No. CR-07-98

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

October 15, 2020

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, AND MOTION FOR JOINDER OF CLAIMS

CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-06-166]

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, AND MOTION FOR JOINDER OF CLAIMS DENIED.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice

Rodney Lee Mitchael brings this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, motion to recall mandate¹ to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of errorcoram nobis, and motion for joinder of claims. In the petition and motion, Mitchael makes numerous allegations of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we find that Mitchael's claims do not establish grounds for the relief he seeks, the petition and motion are denied together with the motion for joinder of claims.

I. Background

A Crawford County Circuit Court jury convicted Mitchael of rape and terroristic threatening and sentenced him to 660 months' imprisonment on the rape charge and 120 months' imprisonment on the terroristic-threatening charge. A no-merit brief was filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Mitchael v. State, No. CR-07-98 (Ark. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2008). A review of the record² reflects that the two victims, aged ten and twelve, testified at trial and identified Mitchael as the assailant, semen recovered from the crime scene matched Mitchael's DNA profile, and Mitchael admitted his guilt to investigators and during testimony at trial.

II. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Mitchael has filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly in this court rather than first proceeding in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated. The habeas corpus statute allows members of this court to issue the writ upon proper application and further provides that the power of this court to issue writs of habeas corpus shall be coextensive with the circuit courts. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112402(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). However, this court can require such petitions to be filed first in the circuit court rather than directly in this court. This court's long-standing policy has been to require incarcerated petitioners to address their habeas petitions to the circuit court because the circuit court is able to immediately hold any hearing that is necessary to determine any material facts in issue. Consequently, Mitchael must first file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated and may appeal any adverse decision to this court.

III. Nature of the Writ of Error Coram Nobis

The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the trial court can only entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal if 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.

IV. Grounds for the Writ of Error Coram Nobis

The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999). 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. The burden is on the petitioner in the application for coram nobis relief to make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not to merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. McCullough v. State, 2017 Ark. 292, 528 S.W.3d 833.

V. Claims for Relief

Mitchael makes the following claims for coram nobis relief: (1) he was illegally interrogated, the waiver of rights was falsified, and counsel ineffectively failed to file a motion to suppress his statement to investigators; (2) the victim was allowed to remain in the courtroom during the course of trial in violation of the rule; (3) DNA evidence was illegally obtained, and counsel failed to move to suppress it; (4) counsel ineffectively failed to object to the prosecutor's use of his prior convictions during closing argument; (5) he was notconvicted of more than four felonies because his prior convictions in Sebastian County represented one conviction for multiple offenses;³ (6) counsel was ineffective for filing a no-merit brief; (7) counsel forced him to testify, which led to the admission of his past criminal history; (8) the prosecutor made inappropriate comments during closing argument, and counsel failed to object; and (9) the sentence was excessive and was based on an improper jury instruction regarding the number of Mitchael's prior felony convictions.

Mitchael does not satisfy any ground for granting the writ because he does not allege that there was any evidence extrinsic to the record that was hidden from the defense or that was unknown at the time of trial. Roberts, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. Additionally, Mitchael fails to offer facts sufficient to warrant granting leave to proceed in the trial court for the writ. The application for coram nobis relief must make full disclosure of specific facts relied on as the basis for the writ. McCullough, 2017 Ark. 292, 528 S.W.3d 833. Mitchael's allegations are conclusory, and he does not offer factual support for his claims. We are not required to accept the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis at face value. Joiner v. State, 2020 Ark. 126, 596 S.W.3d 7. Finally, Mitchael's claims for relief are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings.

Mitchael's...