Ronald Dean Matthews v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 79-162
Opinion Delivered
RONALD DEAN MATTHEWS
Petitioner
v.
May 15, 2008
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT
OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CR 77264]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 1979, petitioner Ronald Dean Matthews was convicted of first-degree escape, theft of
property, and kidnapping. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of
eighty years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed the judgment. Matthews v. State, 268 Ark. 484,
598 S.W.2d 58 (1980). In 1992, petitioner sought permission to proceed in circuit court with a
petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, but his petition was denied. Matthews
v. State, CR 79-162 (Ark. Dec. 14, 1992) (per curiam). Next, petitioner filed two petitions that
sought a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court, which were also unsuccessful. See Matthews v. State,
CR 99-639 (Ark. Sept. 16, 1999) (per curiam). In 2001, petitioner filed in this court a petition to
reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was
denied. Matthews v. State, CR 79-162 (Ark. Oct. 18, 2001) (per curiam).
Now petitioner has once again filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, and the matter is before us. In his petition,
petitioner asserts that he was suffering from a mental disease and insane at the time he committed
the crime and at the time of trial, and alleges the prosecution withheld evidence consisting of a 1976
medical report on petitioner with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Petitioner’s claims are
repetitive of those contained in his previous petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, with the sole distinction that, rather than a general
claim that the prosecution withheld evidence, petitioner now asserts somewhat more specifically that
the Arkansas Department of Correction provided the prosecution with a copy of the report and that
information was withheld from the defense. He attaches a letter from Jim Mabry1 which indicates
Mr. Mabry was requesting the interview that resulted in the report.
The function of the writ of error coram nobis 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). 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). 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)).
In previous cases, a writ of error coram nobis has been recognized as available to address
certain errors that are found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty
1
Petitioner does not identify Mr. Mabry, and the letter only indicates Mr. Mabry was “Acting
Commissioner” at the time. There is no letterhead visible on the copy of the letter, but Mr. Mabry has
been associated with the Arkansas Department of Correction.
-2-
plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during
the time between conviction and appeal. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per
curiam). 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). It is a petitioner’s burden
to show that the writ is warranted. Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414, 125 S.W.3d 153 (2003).
Petitioner asserts a claim that falls within one of the four recognized categories because he
alleges insanity at the time of his trial. While a defendant’s previous diagnosis of a mental illness
alone is not sufficient to have prevented rendition of the judgment, the diagnosis petitioner alleges
may raise issues concerning his competency that could have potentially prevented a judgment. The
record of his trial does not indicate that any competency hearing was conducted. As was also the
case in Echols, however, a hearing in the trial court is not warranted in this case because petitioner
has failed to meet his burden to show due diligence.
There is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, but 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. Id. at 419, 125 S.W.3d 157. Due diligence requires that (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; or (3) upon discovering the fact, the defendant did not delay
bringing the petition. Id.
Here, petitioner contends that the prosecution was aware of the test results and diagnosis but
withheld that information from the defense. Petitioner asserts that Mr. Mabry’s letter supports this
allegation, but petitioner does not make clear what connection, if any, that the individual to whom
the letter is addressed had to petitioner’s case. Mr. Mabry was associated with the Department of
-3-
Correction, and the letter concerning petitioner, along with the medical report, should have been
included in petitioner’s inmate file. Petitioner does not indicate when or how he became aware of
the letter or the report, but he has not made a showing that the contents of that file were not readily
available to the defense for review at the time of his trial.
As we noted in our opinion concerning petitioner’s previous petition to reinvest jurisdiction
for the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, petitioner asserted in his Rule
37.1 petition that trial counsel was aware that petitioner had a history of mental illness. Regardless
as to whether the letter might show that the prosecution had actual knowledge of the medical report
as petitioner alleges, because counsel was aware of his medical history, petitioner has not shown that
the report could not have been presented at trial by counsel. Petitioner has not shown due diligence
where the report could have been discovered because it was readily available to counsel in
petitioner’s inmate file. The letter petitioner has attached does not demonstrate that the file was not
readily available to petitioner’s attorney or that the report was not contained in the file.
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.
