Russell v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CACR 05-241
Opinion Delivered
ISAAC DEWAYNE RUSSELL
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
March 12, 2009
PRO SE MOTION AND AMENDED
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
[CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI
COUNTY, CR 2003-3247]
MOTIONS DENIED.
PER CURIAM
On December 19, 2008, this court handed down Russell v. State, CACR 05-241 (Ark. Dec.
19, 2008) (per curiam), in which we denied petitioner’s petition and amended petitions to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Therein, we held
that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor had suppressed material exculpatory
evidence, or that a fundamental error of fact existed that was extrinsic to the record and would have
prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of the trial. Larimore v. State,
327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997).
Now before us are petitioner’s pro se motion and amended motions for reconsideration of
that decision. In the motions for reconsideration at issue here, petitioner reiterates the same
conclusory allegations made in the prior petitions. Petitioner has therefore failed to meet his burden
of demonstrating that there was some error of fact or law in the present decision that would merit
reconsideration of the denial of the petition and amended petitions to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Motions denied.
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.
