Wardell Green v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 159, 628 S.W.3d 370

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: September 16, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. 159 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-00-1258

Opinion Delivered: September 16, 2021

WARDELL GREEN PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST PETITIONER JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A V. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS STATE OF ARKANSAS [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT RESPONDENT COURT, FIRST DIVISION, NO. 60CR-98-3799]

PETITION DENIED.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice

Wardell Green brings this pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to

consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Green challenges the

testimony corroborating his part in the crime. Because Green fails to raise a cognizable claim

for issuance of the writ, the petition is denied.

I. Background

A Pulaski County jury found Green guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of

property and sentenced him to serve fifty years in prison as a habitual offender. The Arkansas

Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction finding that it was supported by sufficient

evidence. Green v. State, No. CACR-00-1258 (Ark. App. June 6, 2001) (unpublished). The

conviction arose when Green and an accomplice, Joshua Miles, and another alleged accomplice 1 robbed the victim, Shane Connerly, at gunpoint. Id. At trial, Connerly

identified Green as one of the perpetrators, and Miles testified that he and Green had

participated in the robbery. Id.

II. Nature of the Writ

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.

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

1 According to Green’s petition, the other alleged accomplice was never charged in the robbery because the victim failed to identify him as one of the robbery’s participants.

2 third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Howard

v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.

III. Claims for Relief

Green contends that the testimony of his accomplice, Miles, that connected Green

to the gun used in the robbery was not corroborated by Connerly’s testimony. According

to Green, Connerly failed to confirm that Green had provided the gun. Despite Green’s

contention pertaining to who provided the gun, it is clear that Connerly identified Green

as one of the assailants and therefore corroborated Miles’s testimony identifying Green as a

participant in the crime and connecting Green to it. See Meadows v. State, 2012 Ark. 57, 386

S.W.3d 470 (Corroboration must be evidence of a substantive nature, since it must be

directed toward proving the accused’s connection with the crime, and not directed toward

corroborating the accomplice’s testimony.).

In any event, Green has failed to raise a claim that is found in one of the four

categories that fall within the purview of coram nobis relief. Howard, 2012 Ark. 177, 403

S.W.3d 38. Green’s claim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

conviction for aggravated robbery, and claims that attack the sufficiency of the evidence or

the credibility of witnesses constitute a direct attack on the judgment and are not within the

purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Swanigan v. State, 2019 Ark. 294, 586 S.W.3d 137.

Wardell Green, pro se petitioner.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.