Biggs v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Alvin Biggs was found guilty by a jury of the first-degree murder of his stepfather. Biggs filed a pro se petition with the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that the State withheld evidence of the victim's prior criminal history of abuse, assaults, and threats against Biggs and others that revealed his aggressiveness. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Biggs did not meet his burden to show the writ was warranted by demonstrating that the evidence would have been sufficient to have prevented rendition of the judgment.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 304
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CACR 02-573
Opinion Delivered
ALVIN H. BIGGS
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
July 27, 2011
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT
COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY, CHICKASAWBA
DISTRICT, CR 2001-108]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Alvin H. Biggs was found guilty by a jury of the first-degree murder of his
stepfather, Tommy Clay, with whom he and his family lived. He was sentenced to 480
months’ imprisonment with an additional sixty months’ enhancement for using a firearm in
the commission of the murder. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Biggs v. State, CACR
02-573 (Ark. App. Feb. 12, 2003) (unpublished).
In his pretrial statement that was introduced into evidence at petitioner’s trial,
petitioner said that he had been thinking about killing the victim for some time until one
morning he awoke, went to stand over the victim for a moment, retrieved the victim’s gun
from a bedroom, stood over him again for a time, and then shot him once in the head. A
forensic pathologist testified that the victim died from a single gunshot wound to the head.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 304
At trial, petitioner disavowed the statements he had made and contended that he was not
guilty and that it would have been physically impossible for him to have fired the fatal shot.
Petitioner testified that the fatal shot occurred when the victim woke up and grabbed a man
named Charles who was present in the house and that petitioner saw the gun in Charles’s
hand immediately after the shooting.
Now before us is petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case.1 A 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. Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 151 (per curiam); Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per
curiam); Fudge v. State, 2010 Ark. 426 (per curiam); Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, ___
S.W.3d ___ (per curiam) (citing Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, ___ S.W.3d ___); see also
Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its
denial than its approval. Sanders v. State, 2011 Ark. 199 (per curiam); Rayford v. State, 2011
Ark. 86 (per curiam); Whitham v. State, 2011 Ark. 28 (per curiam); Fudge, 2010 Ark. 426;
Barker v. State, 2010 Ark. 354 , ___ S.W.3d ___; 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. Dickerson v. State, 2011 Ark. 247 (per
1
For clerical purposes, the petition was assigned the docket number for the direct
appeal of the judgment of conviction, CACR 02-573.
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 304
curiam) (citing 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 evidence
withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between
conviction and appeal. Pitts, 336 Ark. at 583, 986 S.W.2d at 409. The function of the writ
is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have
prevented its rendition if it had been known to the circuit court and which, through no
negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment.
Dickerson, 2011 Ark. 247; Grant, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (citing Newman, 2009 Ark.
539, ___ S.W.3d ___); see also Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (2008) (per
curiam); Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004). The petitioner has the burden
of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Crawford v. State, 2011
Ark. 165 (per curiam); Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (per curiam); Sanders v. State, 374 Ark.
70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (2008) (per curiam). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong
presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Crawford, 2010 Ark. 165; Gardner v.
State, 2011 Ark. 27 (per curiam); Barker, 2010 Ark. 354, ___ S.W.3d ___; Echols v. State, 360
Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005); Venn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing
Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)).
Petitioner’s sole ground for issuance of the writ is that the State withheld evidence of
the victim’s extensive prior criminal history of abuse, assaults, and threats against petitioner
-3-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 304
and others that revealed his aggressiveness. Petitioner states that he discovered the criminal
history by means of a Freedom of Information Act request made to the Blytheville Police
Department in 2010. Petitioner claims that the information should have been provided to the
defense in response to the motion for discovery made by defense counsel prior to trial so that
the defense could have used the information at trial. He alleges in particular that the police
officers who took the reports could have testified at trial and that the information would have
supported his claim of self-defense. Petitioner has appended to his petition a copy of a number
of police reports made prior to his trial that reflect criminal behavior on the part of the victim.
The allegations do not warrant issuance of the writ. First, petitioner argued at trial that he did
not shoot the victim. Thus, the aggressive nature of the victim as reflected in the police
reports was not germane to the defense of actual innocence. Secondly, even if the police
reports could have been beneficial to the defense, petitioner does not explain why the defense
was unable to obtain the police reports at the time of trial. There is no explanation of why the
reports were available to petitioner in 2010, but not available to the defense at trial in 2001.
The leading precedent concerning evidence not disclosed by the prosecution to the
defense is Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). To establish a Brady violation, three
elements are required: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either
because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been
suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued.
Larimore, 341 Ark. at 404, 17 S.W.3d at 91.
-4-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 304
Petitioner has offered nothing to demonstrate that the evidence would indeed have
been favorable to the defense, considering that he did not claim self-defense. He further offers
nothing to show that the State in any way suppressed the police reports. Moreover, to merit
relief, a 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
information been disclosed at trial. Buckley v. State, 2010 Ark. 154, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per
curiam). In order to carry his burden to show that the writ is warranted, petitioner must
demonstrate that, had the police reports that he alleges were withheld been available, the
evidence would have been sufficient to have prevented rendition of the judgment. Sanders v.
State, 2011 Ark. 199 (per curiam); see also Harris v. State, 2010 Ark. 489 (per curiam). He has
not met that burden. He contended at trial that he did not shoot the victim, and he has failed
to establish that the police reports would have changed the jury’s determination that he did
commit the crime.
Petition denied.
-5-
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.
