Anarian Chad Jackson v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CACR 03-1127
Opinion Delivered
December 11, 2008
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI
COUNTY, CR 2001-4006]
ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2003, a jury found petitioner Anarian Chad Jackson guilty of second-degree murder and
sentenced him to eighty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Jackson v. State, CACR 03-1127 (Ark. App. Dec.1, 2004).
Petitioner has now filed a pro se petition in this court seeking permission to proceed in the trial court
with a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 After a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a
petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit court
can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis only after we grant permission. Dansby v. State,
343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
Petitioner asserts as grounds for relief the prosecution’s withholding of evidence concerning
information as to deals made with two witnesses who had testified that there had been no offers or
promises made in exchange for their testimony. In support of his claim, petitioner asserts that the
transcript from the sentencing hearing for one witness, Ammar Mahdi, is evidence that the
1
appeal.
For clerical purposes, the instant petition was assigned the same docket number as the direct
prosecution did have a deal with Mr. Mahdi for testimony. Petitioner points to testimony by a
prosecutor at that hearing that he asserts indicated the prosecution did agree to provide help in
exchange for his testimony. Petitioner also alleges that the other witness, Chris Bush, made
statements to a cell mate recanting his testimony. He attaches an affidavit from Antonio Jackson in
which Mr. Jackson avers that Chris Bush told him that he had been offered a plea of forty years in
exchange for his help in convicting petitioner. Petitioner also points to what he alleges is further
evidence of a deal in a circuit court record for proceedings against Chris Bush that is not, and was
not previously, before this court.
Error coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of
conviction is valid. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257
Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment
rendered while there existed some fact which 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 judgment. Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004). A writ
of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy that is more known for its denial than its
approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000).
For the writ to issue following the affirmance of a conviction, the petitioner must show a
fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818
(1997). 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) (per
curiam). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors that
are found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material
-2-
evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between
conviction and appeal. Id. at 583, 986 S.W.2d at 409.
Here, petitioner has alleged that evidence was withheld by the prosecutor. He asserts
violations of his right to due process as guaranteed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). As
to petitioner’s claim concerning Ammar Mahdi, however, it is clear that he has failed to demonstrate
due diligence in seeking error coram nobis relief, even though he has alleged a fundamental error of
fact falling within one of the recognized categories.
While there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence
is required in making an application for relief and in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the
petition will be denied. Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005). Due diligence
requires satisfaction of certain conditions, as follows: (1) the defendant be unaware of the fact at the
time of trial; (2) the defendant could not have, in the exercise of due diligence, presented the fact at
trial; (3) upon discovering the fact, the defendant did not delay bringing the petition. Id. Petitioner
was aware of the facts concerning Mr. Mahdi at trial. The court of appeals decision on direct appeal
notes that petitioner was in possession of a copy of the transcript from Mr. Mahdi’s sentencing
hearing during the trial. Petitioner was aware of the alleged fundamental error of fact and had
opportunity to seek correction of the error more than five years ago.
In a reply to the State’s response to his petition that was tendered to this court, petitioner cites
Sanders v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Jun. 19, 2008) (per curiam), in support of an
exception to our due diligence rule. But, in Sanders, a document granting full immunity to the
witness was not in the file for the petitioner’s case, but was only discovered in the case file for the
prosecution’s case against the witness during the course of proceedings by the petitioner under
-3-
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.5. The trial court accelerated the preparation of a partial
record to permit the petitioner in that case to bring a petition in this court to reinvest jurisdiction for
consideration of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Unlike petitioner’s circumstances, where
counsel was aware of the facts and argued those facts at trial, in Sanders, the facts supporting a claim
of withheld evidence only came to light after the trial and within a short period of time before the
petitioner sought the writ. Diligence was clearly not an issue under the circumstances in Sanders.
As to petitioner’s allegations concerning Chris Bush, he does not provide a cognizable claim
of fundamental error supported by sufficient facts. Petitioner’s claim that Chris Bush recanted his
testimony is not cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding. Sanders, ___ Ark. at ___, ___
S.W.3d at ___ (citing Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (1940)). Petitioner also alleges
that the record of proceedings against Chris Bush shows that certain charges were nol prosed after
he made a statement against petitioner. While petitioner appears to allege that the record indicated
that the prosecution nol prosed the charges pursuant to an agreement, he does not state any facts to
support such a conclusion.
The court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Penn, 282
Ark. at 574-575, 670 S.W.2d at 428 (again citing Troglin, 257 Ark. at 645-646, 519 S.W.2d at 741).
The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice and an
application should make full disclosure of specific facts, rather than merely state conclusions as to
the nature of such facts. Cloird, 357 Ark. at 450, 182 S.W.3d at 479. As petitioner’s claims do not
justify reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis,
we deny the petition.
Petition denied.
-4-
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.
