Cite as 2021 Ark. 190 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-90-247
Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2021 MICHAEL WAYNE WILLIAMS PETITIONER PRO SE SECOND PETITION AND AMENDED SECOND PETITION TO V. REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A STATE OF ARKANSAS PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR RESPONDENT CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR- 89-2201]
PETITION AND AMENDED PETITION DENIED.
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Petitioner Michael Wayne Williams was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping,
and aggravated assault for which he was sentenced to life, twenty years, and six years,
respectively, to run consecutively. Williams appealed his convictions and sentences, and this
court affirmed. Williams v. State, 304 Ark. 509, 804 S.W.2d 346 (1991). Williams now brings
a pro se second petition and an amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends that the State
withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because Williams’s
claim does not establish a ground for issuance of the writ, we deny the petitions. I. Background
On August 13, 1989, Williams went to the home of Virginia McGee, the victim,
looking for his ex-girlfriend, Robin Jefferson. On that night, Jefferson was staying with her
grandmother, and McGee was at home with her boyfriend, Willis Stewart. Williams, 304 Ark.
509, 804 S.W.2d 346.1 Stewart testified that he and McGee had fallen asleep but awoke to
find Williams in their doorway, holding a gun. Id. As Williams was asking about Jefferson’s
whereabouts, McGee got up and told Williams to leave at which time she and Williams
walked down the hallway. Id. Stewart stated that he heard the screen door close, and as
McGee was walking back down the hall, Stewart heard gunshots. Id. Williams then ran back
into the house and into the bedroom, asking where Jefferson was. Williams then fled. Id.
Captain Randy Johnson of the North Little Rock Police Department testified that he
conducted an interview with Williams and that Williams told him and Sergeant Jim
Chapman that he went to McGee’s home armed with a handgun. Id. After McGee escorted
Williams to the door, telling him to leave, McGee started to walk across the living room to
the hallway, at which time Williams raised his gun and fired two shots. Id. Dr. Fahmy Malak,
the chief medical examiner with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, confirmed that
McGee had been shot once in the abdomen and once in the lower back and that evidence
reflected that she had been shot with a .45-caliber weapon. Id.
1 This court may take judicial notice in postconviction proceedings of the record on direct appeal without need to supplement the record. Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. 289, 586 S.W.3d 148.
2 On direct appeal, Williams argued that the shots had been fired in frustration and
that he did not intend to kill McGee. This court determined that it was irrelevant that
Williams’s initial quarrel was with Jefferson when he arrived at the house and that the jury
could reasonably have found that Williams became so upset with McGee that he raised his
gun and fired, purposely intending to kill McGee. Id.
Williams subsequently sought relief by filing a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction
in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. After obtaining a copy
of McGee’s autopsy report, Williams claimed that the medical examiner gave false testimony
that both wounds had gunpowder residue, and the fact that there was no residue in one of
the wounds was withheld by the prosecution in violation of Brady. Williams v. State, 2011
Ark. 541 (per curiam). This court determined that Williams failed to claim that either the
report or its findings were, in fact, withheld and unavailable to the defense and that any
inconsistency between the medical examiner’s testimony and the report was subject to cross-
examination. Id. Moreover, at least one of McGee’s wounds contained gunpowder residue,
indicating Williams was close to McGee when he fired the gun and thus had failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been
rendered had the information at issue been disclosed at trial. Id. Williams now seeks relief
in a pro se second petition and an amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the
trial court.
II. Nature of the Writ
3 The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the trial court
can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on
appeal only after we grant permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. A
writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397,
17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that
the judgment of conviction is valid. Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. 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 trial court and
which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before
rendition of the judgment. Newman, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the
burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Roberts v. State,
2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. We are not required to accept the allegations in a petition
for writ of error coram nobis at face value. Jackson v. State, 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242.
III. Grounds for the Writ
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to
address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. A writ of error coram nobis is available
for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (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.
IV. Claims for Issuance of the Writ
4 To merit relief on a claim of a Brady violation, 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. Jackson, 2017
Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242. There are three elements to a Brady violation: (1) the evidence at
issue must be favorable to the accused either because it is exculpatory or because it is
impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or
inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued. Carner v. State, 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d
634. Before the court can determine whether a Brady violation has occurred, the petitioner
must first establish that the material was available to the State prior to trial and that the
defense did not have it. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2021 Ark. 190 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-90-247
Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2021 MICHAEL WAYNE WILLIAMS PETITIONER PRO SE SECOND PETITION AND AMENDED SECOND PETITION TO V. REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A STATE OF ARKANSAS PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR RESPONDENT CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR- 89-2201]
PETITION AND AMENDED PETITION DENIED.
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Petitioner Michael Wayne Williams was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping,
and aggravated assault for which he was sentenced to life, twenty years, and six years,
respectively, to run consecutively. Williams appealed his convictions and sentences, and this
court affirmed. Williams v. State, 304 Ark. 509, 804 S.W.2d 346 (1991). Williams now brings
a pro se second petition and an amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends that the State
withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because Williams’s
claim does not establish a ground for issuance of the writ, we deny the petitions. I. Background
On August 13, 1989, Williams went to the home of Virginia McGee, the victim,
looking for his ex-girlfriend, Robin Jefferson. On that night, Jefferson was staying with her
grandmother, and McGee was at home with her boyfriend, Willis Stewart. Williams, 304 Ark.
509, 804 S.W.2d 346.1 Stewart testified that he and McGee had fallen asleep but awoke to
find Williams in their doorway, holding a gun. Id. As Williams was asking about Jefferson’s
whereabouts, McGee got up and told Williams to leave at which time she and Williams
walked down the hallway. Id. Stewart stated that he heard the screen door close, and as
McGee was walking back down the hall, Stewart heard gunshots. Id. Williams then ran back
into the house and into the bedroom, asking where Jefferson was. Williams then fled. Id.
Captain Randy Johnson of the North Little Rock Police Department testified that he
conducted an interview with Williams and that Williams told him and Sergeant Jim
Chapman that he went to McGee’s home armed with a handgun. Id. After McGee escorted
Williams to the door, telling him to leave, McGee started to walk across the living room to
the hallway, at which time Williams raised his gun and fired two shots. Id. Dr. Fahmy Malak,
the chief medical examiner with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, confirmed that
McGee had been shot once in the abdomen and once in the lower back and that evidence
reflected that she had been shot with a .45-caliber weapon. Id.
1 This court may take judicial notice in postconviction proceedings of the record on direct appeal without need to supplement the record. Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. 289, 586 S.W.3d 148.
2 On direct appeal, Williams argued that the shots had been fired in frustration and
that he did not intend to kill McGee. This court determined that it was irrelevant that
Williams’s initial quarrel was with Jefferson when he arrived at the house and that the jury
could reasonably have found that Williams became so upset with McGee that he raised his
gun and fired, purposely intending to kill McGee. Id.
Williams subsequently sought relief by filing a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction
in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. After obtaining a copy
of McGee’s autopsy report, Williams claimed that the medical examiner gave false testimony
that both wounds had gunpowder residue, and the fact that there was no residue in one of
the wounds was withheld by the prosecution in violation of Brady. Williams v. State, 2011
Ark. 541 (per curiam). This court determined that Williams failed to claim that either the
report or its findings were, in fact, withheld and unavailable to the defense and that any
inconsistency between the medical examiner’s testimony and the report was subject to cross-
examination. Id. Moreover, at least one of McGee’s wounds contained gunpowder residue,
indicating Williams was close to McGee when he fired the gun and thus had failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been
rendered had the information at issue been disclosed at trial. Id. Williams now seeks relief
in a pro se second petition and an amended second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the
trial court.
II. Nature of the Writ
3 The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the trial court
can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on
appeal only after we grant permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. A
writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397,
17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that
the judgment of conviction is valid. Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. 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 trial court and
which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before
rendition of the judgment. Newman, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the
burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Roberts v. State,
2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. We are not required to accept the allegations in a petition
for writ of error coram nobis at face value. Jackson v. State, 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242.
III. Grounds for the Writ
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to
address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. A writ of error coram nobis is available
for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (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.
IV. Claims for Issuance of the Writ
4 To merit relief on a claim of a Brady violation, 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. Jackson, 2017
Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242. There are three elements to a Brady violation: (1) the evidence at
issue must be favorable to the accused either because it is exculpatory or because it is
impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or
inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued. Carner v. State, 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d
634. Before the court can determine whether a Brady violation has occurred, the petitioner
must first establish that the material was available to the State prior to trial and that the
defense did not have it. Id.
Williams contends that he obtained documents from the Arkansas State Crime
Laboratory that indicate prosecutorial misconduct based on exculpatory and impeaching
evidence that was withheld by the State and that is extrinsic to the record. Williams claims
that he did not receive any documents from the prosecutor at the time of trial indicating
that there had been no testing on the shell casings and bullets and that he had to seek the
documents himself, which is a violation of Brady because he could have impeached and cross-
examined witnesses about the lack of testing. Williams further claims that Sergeant
Chapman testified that he collected .45-caliber casings and bullets from the crime scene,
Stewart testified that Williams was seen with a .45-caliber weapon, and Dr. Malak testified
that the wounds were caused by a large caliber weapon consistent with a .45-caliber bullet,
but that no examiner from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory made findings to confirm
5 that the bullets and casings were from a .45-caliber weapon or that they could be linked to
him. Williams’s claims do not merit issuance of the writ.
Although Williams contends that crime-lab documents were withheld, he also
contends that crime-lab testing was withheld. Williams concedes that the shells casings and
bullets were admitted into evidence but claims that he would have been exonerated had the
jury known of the lack of testing because the State would have failed to link him to McGee’s
murder. Williams’s allegation is not within the purview of the writ because the thoroughness
of the State’s investigation of the evidence adduced in the petitioner’s trial and the strength
of the State’s case against the accused, either in general or with respect to a certain aspect,
are matters to be addressed at trial. See McKinney v. State, 2020 Ark. 113, 594 S.W.3d 879.
Claims that challenge the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in a petition for the
writ of error coram nobis. Id. Furthermore, notwithstanding his claim to the contrary, when
Williams gave a statement to Captain Johnson, he admitted raising the gun and firing two
shots.2 Williams, 304 Ark. at 513, 804 S.W.2d at 347. The defense was clearly aware at the
time of trial that Williams’s possession of the gun and his firing the gun could be at issue,
and questions pertaining to the shell casings and bullets could have been settled at the time
of trial. It is axiomatic that a coram nobis action does not provide the petitioner with a means
to retry his or her case. Carner, 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d 634.
2 Williams admitted to this court on appeal that he had fired the shots, and his only denial was the requisite intent to commit first-degree murder. Williams, 304 Ark. at 513, 804 S.W.2d at 348 (Williams argued that the shots were fired but that the evidence did not show he intended to kill McGee.).
6 Petition and amended petition denied.
Michael Wayne Williams, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.