Maxwell v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 551
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 07-1318
Opinion Delivered
ROBERT T. MAXWELL
a/k/a G-DOFFEE
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
November 5, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT
COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR
2006-2198]
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
This court denied a pro se petition filed by Robert T. Maxwell, who is also known as G-Doffee,
to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis with respect
to a judgment of conviction entered against him in 2007. Maxwell v. State, 2009 Ark. 309 (unpublished
per curiam). Now before us is petitioner’s pro se motion for reconsideration of that decision.
In the motion for reconsideration, petitioner attempts to recast one of his previous arguments
as a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A claim of a Brady violation, i.e. that the State
withheld material exculpatory evidence, falls within one of the four recognized categories for providing
coram nobis relief. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per curiam).
Petitioner initially contended that Cedric Barnes, one of the prosecution witnesses, gave
testimony that was coerced and amounted to inadmissible hearsay, resulting in fundamental unfairness
at petitioner’s trial. We found that petitioner’s argument regarding Barnes failed to fall within one of
the four categories set forth in Pitts for which coram nobis relief could be granted.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 551
Petitioner now contends that he only recently located a previously unidentified witness, Elbert
Davenport. He asserts that Davenport could have testified that Barnes was aware of exculpatory
evidence regarding the murder weapon for which Barnes could have been cross-examined at trial.
Petitioner also contends that Barnes exchanged his giving false testimony for the prosecutor’s promise
that Barnes would not be prosecuted on criminal charges. According to petitioner, the prosecutor
suppressed information about the weapon and about Barnes’ deal with the prosecutor, thereby violating
Brady.
Both of petitioner’s contentions raise entirely new arguments that were not contained in the
original petition for coram nobis relief. He thus fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that there
was some error of fact or law in the ruling at issue that would merit reconsideration of our decision to
deny the relief sought.
Motion denied.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
