Pruitt v. State
Annotate this CaseIn 2012, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of rape and one count of sexual indecency with a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner filed a pro se petition and supplemental petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging, among other claims, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial, that the state postconviction remedy is not adequate to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the State withheld material evidence from the defense. The Supreme Court denied the petition and supplement to petition, holding (1) Petitioner’s claim under Brady v. Maryland failed; and (2) the remainder of Petitioner’s claims did not fit within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding.
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.