Scott v. State

2019 Ark. 269

584 S.W.3d 669

Broderick Don SCOTT, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-18-685

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: October 10, 2019

Broderick Don Scott, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice

In 2006, appellant Broderick Don Scott entered a plea of guilty to first-degree battery, two counts of committing a terroristic act, possession of a firearm by certain persons, aggravated assault, and first-degree terroristic threatening, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 360 months' imprisonment. In 2013, Scott filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging the judgment, and on November 26, 2013, the petition was denied. Scott did not file a notice of appeal until February 19, 2014, eighty-five days after the order had been entered. This court denied Scott's motion for belated appeal for failure to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. Scott v. State , 2014 Ark. 199, 2014 WL 1776009 (per curiam).

On April 20, 2016, Scott again sought coram nobis relief in the trial court. Scott filed an amended pro se petition on May 5, 2016. The trial court, addressing the May 5, 2016 amended coram nobis petition, denied relief and noted that it had found Scott's first coram nobis petition untimely in 2013 and that Scott's current petition, filed ten years after imposition of sentence, "would be no timelier than the first." This court reversed and remanded, concluding that the Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), claim may have had merit and that the trial court was in a position to hold an evidentiary hearing to consider and test the merits of the petition. See Scott v. State , 2017 Ark. 199, 520 S.W.3d 262.

On remand and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again denied relief, and Scott now appeals the denial of his second petition for writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, Scott contends that (1) the trial court erred by finding that Scott failed to demonstrate the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady ; (2) the trial court erred by not taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts regarding the file-mark dates on the evidence introduced by the State; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to apply the doctrine of "law of the case" when raised by Scott; (4) the trial court erred by stating that the victim "recanted" her statement;¹ the trial court erred by permitting the State to piecemeal its defense; and (6) the trial court erred by failing to find that Scott suffered prejudice by the suppression of the evidence. Scott has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion and that the writ should have issued; as such, we affirm.

I. Standard of Review

When the judgment is appealed, an appellant must first seek permission in this court to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Kain v. State , 2019 Ark. 113, 570 S.W.3d 466. However, if the judgment of conviction was entered on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the petition for writ of error coram nobis is first filed directly with the trial court. Id. The standard of review of an order entered by the trial court on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ. Osburn v. State , 2018 Ark. 341, 560 S.W.3d 774. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id. The trial court's findings of fact on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis will not be reversed on appeal unless those findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez v. State , 2018 Ark. 32, 536 S.W.3d 614. There is no abuse of discretion in the denial of coram nobis relief when the claims in the petition were groundless. Osburn , 2018 Ark. 341, 560 S.W.3d 774.

II. Nature of the Writ

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. Id. 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 v. State , 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. We are not required to accept the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis at face value. Jackson v. State , 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242.

III. 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.

IV. Claims for Issuance of the Writ

A. Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine and Piecemeal Litigation

Scott's claims that the trial court erred by not applying his argument of the law-of-the-case doctrine and by permitting the State to piecemeal its defense are inapposite and are, at best, conclusory, providing no basis for relief. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial court upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review. Harmon v. State , 2019 Ark. 34, 2019 WL 474544. The doctrine is not inflexible and does not absolutely preclude correction of error, but it prevents an issue raised in a prior appeal from being raised in a subsequent appeal unless the evidence materially varies between the two appeals. Camargo v. State , 337 Ark. 105, 987 S.W.2d 680 (1999). The doctrine also prevents consideration of an argument that could have been raised at the first appeal and is not made until a subsequent appeal. Harmon , 2019 Ark. 34. Furthermore, the requirement that an order be final to be appealable is a jurisdictional requirement, and the purpose of the finality requirement is to avoid piecemeal litigation. K.W. v. State , 327 Ark. 205, 937 S.W.2d 658 (1997). The rule of "law of the case" is founded upon "a policy of avoiding piecemeal litigation." Morris v. Garmon , 291 Ark. 67, 69, 722 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1987).

Although the legal principles of the law-of-the-case doctrine and piecemeal litigation as cursorily presented by Scott are facially correct, they do not provide any relief for Scott because the petition for writ of error coram nobis was reversed and remanded. Scott's arguments are based on the contention that the State admitted a transcript of a plea hearing, that it was not presented during the prior appeal, and that it was unfair for him to carry a burden of proof during the evidentiary hearing. During the prior appeal, however, this court noted that it "d[id] not have a plea-hearing transcript, a plea agreement, a prior-victim statement, a criminal information, or any documentation contradicting Scott's affirmative claims." Scott , 2017 Ark. 199, at 6–7, 520 S.W.3d at 266. In reversing and remanding, this court held that

[t]he trial court is in a position to hold an evidentiary hearing and to consider and test the merits of the petition; and it has the discretion to grant or deny it. If Scott fails in his burden of proof, or if the matters proven do not establish compelling circumstances requiring the extraordinary relief afforded by a writ of error coram nobis, then such a determination will be based on a full hearing, consideration of the allegations, and application of the principles of law to the findings of fact.

Id. at 9–10, 520 S.W.3d at 268 (internal citations omitted). Simply put, there was no decision rendered by this court to limit the trial court thereby establishing law of the case in this matter-the subsequent appeal-with respect to the Brady claim.²

B. Brady Violation

Scott contends the trial court erred by failing to find that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady and that he was prejudiced by the suppression of that evidence. Specifically, he contends that an April 3, 2006 exculpatory statement signed by Tamiko Woolford, the victim of the shooting, that was filed in the North Little Rock District Court was withheld from the defense. Scott further contends that, after he had filed a motion for discovery on December 14, 2017, he later discovered that there were "several exculpatory statements that he was unaware of" within his files. Because Scott did not establish that he was prejudiced by the exculpatory evidence, he failed to provide a basis for coram nobis relief

Suppression of material exculpatory evidence by a prosecutor falls within one of the four previously recognized categories of coram nobis relief. Osburn , 2018 Ark. 341, 560 S.W.3d 774. The mere fact that a petitioner alleges a Brady violation, however, is not sufficient to provide a basis for error coram nobis relief. Id. To establish a Brady violation, three elements are required: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued. Wallace v. State , 2018 Ark. 164, 545 S.W.3d 767. To warrant coram nobis relief, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error extrinsic to the...