Guy Anthony Boone v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

April 26, 2001

GUY ANTHONY BOONE

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 98-284

PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF UNION COUNTY, CR 97-132]

PETITION DENIED

Guy Anthony Boone was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Boone v. State, 334 Ark. 752, 976 S.W.2d 921 (1998). Boone now asks this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ··²TopOfPage²····²TopOfPage²··-

The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, ___S.W.3d___ (2001).

-A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark.397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). 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). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors of the most fundamental nature that are foundin one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Pitts, supra, citing Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid.

After reviewing the instant petition, we do not find that petitioner has stated good cause to grant leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.

The sole ground for the writ asserted by petitioner is that the State failed to disclose to the defense a lab report of tests conducted by the Trace Evidence Section of the State Crime Laboratory. Petitioner offers nothing to show that the report was exculpatory beyond the assertion that the evidence of gunshot residue was inconclusive. He has also failed to establish that the report was suppressed by the State in that there was no motion for discovery in the record from the direct appeal of the judgment; thus, it cannot be said that the State deliberately withheld the report when requested. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) holds that it is a violation of due process for the State to suppress evidence favorable to an accused that has been requested.

Moreover, even if the lab report had been suppressed, when determining whether a petitioner is entitled to relief as a result of material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, the petitioner must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, had the evidence been disclosed at trial. Larimore, supra.

In light of petitioner's confession to having shot the victim, he has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment would not have beenrendered, or would have been prevented, had the lab report been in the hands of the defense at trial.

Petition denied.