Walls v. State

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NOS. 43CR-93-236; 43CR-97-276]

Charles A. “Jack” Walls III, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

Petitioner Charles A. "Jack" Walls III pleaded guilty to five counts of rape and nolo contendere to one count of rape, for which he was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment and three forty-year terms. Walls v. State, 341 Ark. 787, 20 S.W.3d 322 (2000). The life terms were to run concurrently with each other, as were the three forty-year terms. The three forty-year terms, however, were to run consecutively to the life terms.^[1] Id. at 389, 20 S.W.3d at 323. Walls appealed, and this court affirmed. Id. Walls now brings this pro se

petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends that the trial judge was biased and that a motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Walls makes an alternative claim for recall of the mandate. Because none of Walls's claims establish grounds for the writ, the petition is denied.^[2]

Walls was a Boy Scout troop leader who sexually molested boys under his care. After Walls pleaded guilty to four counts of rape and nolo contendere to one count of rape, the trial judge conducted a sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the prosecutor called Walls's victims as witnesses as well as some of the victims' parents and grandparents. The focal point of the hearing was testimony "related to the impact of Walls's actions, and the rapes in particular, on the lives of the boys." Walls, 336 Ark. at 493, 986 S.W.2d at 399. After his sentencing, Walls appealed, contending the trial judge erred by allowing and considering, for sentencing purposes, irrelevant evidence relating to Walls's culpability for the murder of the Stocks family.^[3] Id., 986 S.W.2d at 399. This court determined that the trial judge abused his discretion when he allowed evidence of Walls's involvement in the Stocks murders and

when he held Walls responsible for those murders in fixing Walls's sentence. As stated, the matter was reversed and remanded. Id. at 499, 986 S.W.2d at 402.

After Walls was resentenced, he appealed, arguing that the trial judge was biased at the resentencing hearing and should have recused himself or, alternatively, that the trial judge should have permitted him to withdraw his guilty and nolo contendere pleas. Walls, 341 Ark. at 789, 20 S.W.3d at 323. This court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to recuse himself or by denying Walls's second motion to withdraw his guilty and nolo contendere pleas.^[4] Id. at 793, 20 S.W.3d at 326.

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

Walls contends that he is entitled to issuance of the writ because he was subjected to coercion "under the direct domination of the trial court" during the guilty-plea and sentencing proceedings. Walls notes that he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty and nolo contendere and for the trial judge to recuse himself when the matter was remanded for resentencing and that he now seeks relief not only for coercion of his pleas but also for the trial judge's failure to recuse himself. Essentially, Walls argues that the risk of bias on the part of the trial judge was too high...