Cite as 2019 Ark. 298 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-18-402
Opinion Delivered: October 24, 2019 HEATH CARLTON STOCKS APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 43CR-97-9] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE JASON ASHLEY PARKER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Heath Carlton Stocks appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for a
writ of error coram nobis and audita querela.1 Stocks, who entered a guilty plea in 1997 to
three counts of capital murder in the deaths of his family members, raises multiple grounds
for relief. Because Stocks has not established grounds for issuance of the writ, we affirm.
I. Nature of the Writ
We review a circuit court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis for
abuse of discretion. Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7. A court abuses its discretion when it
acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. A writ of
error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17
1 Audita querela actions have been abolished. Accordingly, petitions for the abolished writs of error like coram vobis and audita querela are treated as petitions for coram nobis relief, with the same grounds for relief and applicable procedural rules. Whitney v. State, 2018 Ark. 138. S.W.3d 87 (2000). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment when there
existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the
circuit court and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought
forward before judgment. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. It is the
petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. The trial court is not required to hold a
hearing on a clearly non-meritorious coram nobis petition. Griffin v. State, 2018 Ark. 10,
535 S.W.3d 261.
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to
address errors of the most fundamental nature. Dednam v. State, 2019 Ark. 8, 564 S.W.3d
259. A writ of error coram nobis is available to address the following errors: (1) insanity at
the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor,
or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Error coram nobis proceedings are
attended by a “strong presumption” that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson, 2014
Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d at 854.
II. Stocks’s Claims for Relief
On appeal, Stocks reasserts his multiple claims for coram nobis relief. He alleges
that the circuit court was biased and exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct either a
competency hearing or a guilty-plea hearing. Second, Stock’s contends that the State
committed a Brady violation by (1) failing to disclose that an investigator had provided 2 Charles “Jack” Walls III with a copy of the case file and that Walls had used the
information to manipulate members of Stocks’s family into pressuring Stocks to plead
guilty; (2) allowing Reverend Markle to speak to Stocks and by withholding information
that Stocks’s mother had told Reverend Markle about Walls’s sexual abuse; (3) delaying
Walls’s prosecution until after Stocks had pleaded guilty; (4) withholding evidence of
Walls’s “mind control” over Stocks; (5) withholding mitigating evidence of Walls’s long-
term sexual abuse of Stocks; and (6) withholding other mitigating and exculpatory
evidence.
In addition, Stocks asserts several claims regarding his mental competency. He
claims that he was suffering from a mental defect when he pled guilty; that his counsel was
ineffective for advising him not to cooperate with the court-ordered mental evaluation; and
that the evaluating physicians failed to consider a previous mental evaluation. Lastly, he
contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the prosecutor’s
relationship with Walls’s father.
III. Judicial Bias
Stocks argued at trial and reasserts on appeal that the circuit court was biased by
failing to hold a competency hearing and a plea hearing in compliance with Rules 24.4,
24.6, and 24.7 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The mere fact that some rulings are
adverse to the appellant is not enough to demonstrate judicial bias. Brown v. State, 2012
Ark. 399, 424 S.W.3d 288. Stocks’s dissatisfaction with the circuit court’s decisions with
respect to those hearings and how they were conducted does not constitute a showing of
3 extrinsic evidence that would have produced a different result. Martinez-Marmol v. State,
2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Rather than an issue of judicial bias, Stocks has raised an
issue of trial error. Assertions of trial error that could have been raised at trial are not
within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Key v. State, 2019 Ark. 202, 3, 575
S.W.3d 554.
IV. Withheld Evidence
Stocks’s Brady claims are based on allegations that the prosecution withheld
evidence that primarily related to Walls’s sexual abuse of Stocks and his participation in
the murders. While a Brady violation is cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, a
petitioner’s mere allegation of a Brady violation is not a sufficient basis for error coram
nobis relief. Davis v. State, 2019 Ark. 172, 574 S.W.3d 666. When determining whether a
Brady violation has occurred, it must first be determined if the material was available to the
State prior to trial and that the defense did not have access to it. Cloird v. State, 357 Ark.
446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004); Bunch v. State, 2018 Ark. 379, 563 S.W.3d 552.
Stocks’s allegations underlying his Brady claims do not meet this prerequisite.
Stocks was fully aware of Walls’s abuse of him and others and of Walls’s alleged role in the
murders. Stocks also could have disclosed Reverand Markle’s unauthorized visits to his
counsel. To warrant coram nobis relief, the defendant must be unaware of the fact at the
time of trial and could not have discovered the fact in the exercise of due diligence. Hall v.
State, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867. Stocks’s silence, not the actions of the prosecutor
or the investigators, prevented defense counsel from presenting the mitigating 4 circumstances surrounding the murders of Stocks’s family members. Stocks also fails to
demonstrate that the investigator’s alleged actions would have prevented the rendition of
the judgment. Martinez-Marmol, 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49.
Stocks’s assertion that the prosecutor knew of Walls’s involvement with Stocks and
with the murders and withheld this information to conceal Walls’s crimes is not
substantiated. An investigation did not begin into the sexual abuse committed by Walls
until another victim came forward. Stocks has presented no evidence that the prosecutor’s
office was aware of these allegations, or deliberately delayed investigating them, prior to
this event.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2019 Ark. 298 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-18-402
Opinion Delivered: October 24, 2019 HEATH CARLTON STOCKS APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 43CR-97-9] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE JASON ASHLEY PARKER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Heath Carlton Stocks appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for a
writ of error coram nobis and audita querela.1 Stocks, who entered a guilty plea in 1997 to
three counts of capital murder in the deaths of his family members, raises multiple grounds
for relief. Because Stocks has not established grounds for issuance of the writ, we affirm.
I. Nature of the Writ
We review a circuit court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis for
abuse of discretion. Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7. A court abuses its discretion when it
acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. A writ of
error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17
1 Audita querela actions have been abolished. Accordingly, petitions for the abolished writs of error like coram vobis and audita querela are treated as petitions for coram nobis relief, with the same grounds for relief and applicable procedural rules. Whitney v. State, 2018 Ark. 138. S.W.3d 87 (2000). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment when there
existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the
circuit court and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought
forward before judgment. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. It is the
petitioner’s burden to demonstrate a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. The trial court is not required to hold a
hearing on a clearly non-meritorious coram nobis petition. Griffin v. State, 2018 Ark. 10,
535 S.W.3d 261.
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to
address errors of the most fundamental nature. Dednam v. State, 2019 Ark. 8, 564 S.W.3d
259. A writ of error coram nobis is available to address the following errors: (1) insanity at
the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor,
or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Error coram nobis proceedings are
attended by a “strong presumption” that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson, 2014
Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d at 854.
II. Stocks’s Claims for Relief
On appeal, Stocks reasserts his multiple claims for coram nobis relief. He alleges
that the circuit court was biased and exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to conduct either a
competency hearing or a guilty-plea hearing. Second, Stock’s contends that the State
committed a Brady violation by (1) failing to disclose that an investigator had provided 2 Charles “Jack” Walls III with a copy of the case file and that Walls had used the
information to manipulate members of Stocks’s family into pressuring Stocks to plead
guilty; (2) allowing Reverend Markle to speak to Stocks and by withholding information
that Stocks’s mother had told Reverend Markle about Walls’s sexual abuse; (3) delaying
Walls’s prosecution until after Stocks had pleaded guilty; (4) withholding evidence of
Walls’s “mind control” over Stocks; (5) withholding mitigating evidence of Walls’s long-
term sexual abuse of Stocks; and (6) withholding other mitigating and exculpatory
evidence.
In addition, Stocks asserts several claims regarding his mental competency. He
claims that he was suffering from a mental defect when he pled guilty; that his counsel was
ineffective for advising him not to cooperate with the court-ordered mental evaluation; and
that the evaluating physicians failed to consider a previous mental evaluation. Lastly, he
contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the prosecutor’s
relationship with Walls’s father.
III. Judicial Bias
Stocks argued at trial and reasserts on appeal that the circuit court was biased by
failing to hold a competency hearing and a plea hearing in compliance with Rules 24.4,
24.6, and 24.7 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The mere fact that some rulings are
adverse to the appellant is not enough to demonstrate judicial bias. Brown v. State, 2012
Ark. 399, 424 S.W.3d 288. Stocks’s dissatisfaction with the circuit court’s decisions with
respect to those hearings and how they were conducted does not constitute a showing of
3 extrinsic evidence that would have produced a different result. Martinez-Marmol v. State,
2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Rather than an issue of judicial bias, Stocks has raised an
issue of trial error. Assertions of trial error that could have been raised at trial are not
within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Key v. State, 2019 Ark. 202, 3, 575
S.W.3d 554.
IV. Withheld Evidence
Stocks’s Brady claims are based on allegations that the prosecution withheld
evidence that primarily related to Walls’s sexual abuse of Stocks and his participation in
the murders. While a Brady violation is cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, a
petitioner’s mere allegation of a Brady violation is not a sufficient basis for error coram
nobis relief. Davis v. State, 2019 Ark. 172, 574 S.W.3d 666. When determining whether a
Brady violation has occurred, it must first be determined if the material was available to the
State prior to trial and that the defense did not have access to it. Cloird v. State, 357 Ark.
446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004); Bunch v. State, 2018 Ark. 379, 563 S.W.3d 552.
Stocks’s allegations underlying his Brady claims do not meet this prerequisite.
Stocks was fully aware of Walls’s abuse of him and others and of Walls’s alleged role in the
murders. Stocks also could have disclosed Reverand Markle’s unauthorized visits to his
counsel. To warrant coram nobis relief, the defendant must be unaware of the fact at the
time of trial and could not have discovered the fact in the exercise of due diligence. Hall v.
State, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867. Stocks’s silence, not the actions of the prosecutor
or the investigators, prevented defense counsel from presenting the mitigating 4 circumstances surrounding the murders of Stocks’s family members. Stocks also fails to
demonstrate that the investigator’s alleged actions would have prevented the rendition of
the judgment. Martinez-Marmol, 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49.
Stocks’s assertion that the prosecutor knew of Walls’s involvement with Stocks and
with the murders and withheld this information to conceal Walls’s crimes is not
substantiated. An investigation did not begin into the sexual abuse committed by Walls
until another victim came forward. Stocks has presented no evidence that the prosecutor’s
office was aware of these allegations, or deliberately delayed investigating them, prior to
this event. A court considering a claim of a Brady violation in a coram nobis petition is not
required to take the petitioner’s allegations at face value without substantiation. Martin v.
State, 2019 Ark. 167, 574 S.W.3d 661.
V. Mental Incompetence and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Stocks argues that he was mentally incompetent when he was charged and agreed to
plead guilty. However, the record demonstrates that the circuit court ordered a mental
evaluation before Stocks agreed to plead guilty. Counsel advised Stocks not to cooperate
with the evaluating physicians regarding the specific facts about the murders. Nevertheless,
the evaluating physicians were still able to determine whether Stocks was fit to proceed and
found that he was competent in this regard. In short, the question of Stocks’s mental
competence was addressed at the time of trial and is not extrinsic to the record at the time
judgment was rendered. Martinez-Marmol, 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Stocks’s
argument concerning his counsel’s failure to question the reliability of the mental 5 evaluation before he entered the guilty plea is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
That claim is not a cognizable claim in a coram nobis action. Griffin, 2018 Ark. 10, 535
S.W.3d 261.
VI. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Stocks’s claim that the prosecutor was required to recuse himself due to his
relationship with Walls’s father is equally unavailing. Again, Stocks’s claim is not
substantiated. Stocks has not met his burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact
extrinsic to the record. Roberts, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.
Lastly, although Stocks references coercion, he does not allege that his guilty plea
was coerced; instead, he contends that there is no record that demonstrates that Stocks’s
plea was voluntary. To prevail on a claim that a writ of error coram nobis is warranted
because a guilty plea was coerced, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the
plea was the result of fear, duress, or threats of mob violence––grounds that have been
recognized by this court for a finding of coercion. Hall, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867.
The allegation that a guilty plea was coerced in the sense that it was involuntarily given
does not constitute a showing of a coerced plea within the scope of a coram nobis
proceeding. Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524.
Because we find that the petition for coram nobis relief clearly has no merit, we
affirm.
Heath Stocks, pro se appellant. 6 Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.