LLIIULS SIA1L 332 Cate as 360 Ark 332 (2005) [360 Damien ECHOLS STATE of Arkansas CR 94-928, CR 99-1000 202 S,W3d 1 Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered January 20, 2005 [Rehearing denied February 24, 2005 ] COURTS — RECALLING MANDATE — CLAIM WAS PLAINLY INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY REOUIREMENTS OF ROBBINS & TO JUSTIFY RECALLING OF MANDATE — Appellarit's first contention was that the supreme court should recall its mandate under Robbins r: State, 353 Ark: 556, 114 S,W,3d 217 (2003), but appellant made no showing that he had satisfied any of the three factors enumerated therein, which are necessary in order to recall a mandate; appellant could satisfy- only one of the three Robbins critena — his was a death penalty case, appellant did not even attempt to estabhsh that the facts of his case comported with the three "unique circumstances" that convinced a majonry of the court to recall the mandate En Robbins, the purpose of which was to correct an error in the appellate process; here, appellant did not raise the possibility of an error in the appellate
ErHrILS V STATE ARK ] Cite as 360 Ark 332 (2005) 331 process, instead, he merely claimed that "the developments described [in his motion] warrant an order recalling the court's previously issued mandate and reopemng the case for further proceedings in the circuit court ', thus, his claim was plainly insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Robbins and to justify the recaL ling of the mandate_ REMEDIES — APPELLANT REQUESTED THAT TRIAL COURT BE REINvEsT pn WITH JURISDICTION To CONSIDER HIS PETITION FOR WRIT 0-1F ERp np rn PAM N n BIc — BAsic FnR APPELLANT'C CLAIM DID NOT FALL WITHIN ANY OF FOUR CATEGORIES OF ERRnRS FOR WHICH ERROR COR,IM NOBIS CONSTITUTES APPROPRIATE RELIEF — The basis for appellant's claim, 1C, that the jury considered improper and extraneous information in its consideration of his guilt, did not fall within any of four categories of errors for which error coram nobis constitutes appropriate relief, although appellant maintained that his claims regarding jury-deliberation irregularities and impermissible jury bias should fall within the ambit of error coram nobis, the supreme court has specificall y declined to extend the writ to remedy a case involving allegedly misleading responses b y a juror during voir dire. 3, REMEDIES — APPELLANT REQUESTED THAT TRIAL COURT BE REINVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER HIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS — APPELLANT CLEARLY FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING HIS CLAIMS TO LIGHT: — It has been more than ten years since appellant's conviction, this fact clearly demonstrates that he did not exercise due diligence in bringing his claims to light — especially in view of the fact that the point on which he relies (the jury's alleged consideration of Misskelley's confession) was known to the court, the prosecutor, and to appellant's defense team at the time of trial; in his memorandum bnef, he points out that, dunng trial, the trial court denied his motion for mistnal when one of the police witnesses inadvertently mentioned Misskelley's statement, at that time, the court stated, "I suggest that there isn't a soul up on that jury or in this courtroom that doesn't know Mr: Misskelley gave a statement", thus, appellant should have been aware from the time of his trial and conviction of the possibihty that the jury might have been aware of and considered this extraneous information, REMEDIES — COR,IM NOB1S IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ADDRESS & CORRECT ERRORS THAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED — SUPREME 1---4-11 IP T PFCI !NM Tn P.FINVFST TP. TAT rnI IP.T WITH JI IP ISDPTTION
Eci-ioLs v S rE 334 Cite as 360 Ark 332 (2005) [360 TO CONSIDER PETITION FOR 'WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS — Because wram nobis was not applicable to address and correct the errors that allegedly occurred here, and because appellant failed to exercise due diligence in raising these claims — the court declined to reinvest the tnal court with junsdiction to consider appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis Petitioner's Motion to Recall the Mandate and to Reinvest Jurisdiction in the Trial Court to Consider Petition for Writ ot Error Corum Nobis or for Other Extraordinary Relief; denied. Dennis P Riordan, Donald M Morgan, and Theresa A Gibosno; and Cauley, Bowman, Carney & Williams, by- Deborah R Sallings, for appellant: Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen by: David R, Raupp, Sr: Ass't Att'y Gen:, for appellee: om GLAZE, Justice: This case was first decided on March T 19, 1994, when a jury found petitioner Damien Echols guilty of brutally murdering three eight-year-old boys in West Mem-phis on May 5, 1993: Echols appealed these capital murder convictions, and this court, on December 23, 1996, in a 77-page opinion in appellate case number CR94-928, affirmed that conviction: See Echols v: State, 326 Ark, 917, 936 S:W,2d 509 (1996) (Echols I): This court issued its mandate to the circuit court: Echols petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which that Court denied on May 27, 1997, See Echols v. Arkansas, 520 U.S. 1244: This court then reissued its mandate in appellate case number CR94-928 — the direct appeal in Echols Li Echols then pursued his timely petition for postconviction relief in the trial court pursuant to Ark: R: Crim: P. 37:5, See Echols I, : State, 344 Ark: 513, 42 S.W.3d 467 (2001) (Echols II): On June 17, 1999, the trial court denied Echols's Rule 37 claims, and this court, in Echols II, appellate number CR99-1060, affirmed the trial judge's refusal to recuse from the Rule 37 proceeding, but our court remanded this case to the trial court for entry of a written order with findings of facts in compliance with Rule 37:5(i): See Echoh irutialty beLame eligible to fde a pe tition on Januar), 13,1997, the date this court entered its mandate following hE direct appealS This court granted hE motion to stay the mandate so he could petition the Supreme Court
ECHOLS 1. STATE ARK I Cite A5 3b0 Ark 332 (2005) 335 Echols II, 344 Ark. at 51 9 On remand, and after the tnal court's review. the circuit court issued a new order with factual findings, rejecting Echols's Rule 37 claims_ This time, on October 30, 2003, our court affirmed the circuit court on all Rule 37 claims in case number CR99-1060: See Echols v: State, 354 Ark: 530, 127 S,W:3d 486 (2003) (Echols III): Our court's mandate in this Rule 37 postconviction case, No: CR99-1060, issued on December 12, 2003: During the period this court was considering Echols's Rule 37 proceeding, Echols had also filed a petition for writ of error coratn nobis on February 27, 2001, asking this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court Our court ruled it would consider Echols's writ of error coram nobts petition as a separate case under appellate case number CR94-928 (the docket number for Echols I. decided on December 23. 1996): However, this court directed that both cases, CR94-928 and CR99-1060, be submitted and orally argued on the same date: Following separate oral arguments in both cases on October 2, 2003, our court first issued its opinion on October 16, 2003, denying Echols's error coram nobis petition: As previously set out above, this court affirmed and entered its decision on October 30, 2003, denying Echols relief under Rule 37, In sum, this court's mandates in CR 9 4-9 28 and CR99-1060 were final on November 13, 2003, and December 11, 2003, respectively_ Consequently, Echols's requests for postconvicnon relief under Rule 37 and for writ of error coram nobis are final unless Echols can successfully establish grounds for this court to recall its mandates in either case number CR94-928 or CR99-1060:2 On October 29, 2004, Echols filed the instant motion to recall the mandate and his second motion to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his motion and the accompanying brief in support, Echols advances two primary arguments in support of his request to recall the mandate and his error coram nobis petition: 1) he alleges that the Since these mandates have issued: three attorne y s who practice law in San Francisco, California have filed motions in this court seeking permission to practice by comity pursuant to Rule XIV of the Rules Gov erning Admaision to the Bar The attorneys have associated Deborah R Salhngs of Cauley, Bowman, Carney & Wilhams is local counsel For the purpose of considering Echols's new motions, this court grants coimty We note that these attorneys have submitted an order purportedly signed b y Circuit Judge David Burnett, but the order has no file marks In addition, we note that Echols has had as many as stx attorneys in these prior proceedings and appeals, but none of the prior attorneys appear to be active or of record in the pending motions
LLIIOLS V. SI.Alt
336 Cite as 360 Ark, 332 (2005) [360 jury received and considered extraneous information — specifically, the confession ofJessie Misskelley — during deliberations at his trial, thus undermining the fundamental fairness of the trial process; and 2) certain members of the jury harbored an impermissible bias against him, in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights: Echols first argues that this court wields the inherent power to recall its mandates and cites Ark Sup Ct R. 5-3(d) and Robbrns v: State, 353 Ark. 556, 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), to support his argument: However, this court made abundantly clear in Robbins that we were recalling the mandate "solely because of the unique circumstances of this case:" Robbins, 353 Ark, at 564. Specifically, the question raised by the request to recall the mandate was whether an error in Robbins's appeal had been allegedly overlooked that would have been reversible error had it been found earlier: Id The court pointed to three specific factors that prompted the decision to recall the mandate: 1) a decision had been cited to the court which was on all fours legally with the issue presented; 2) the federal district court had dismissed Robbins's federal habeas corpus petition because that issue had not been addressed in state court; and 3) the appeal was a death case "where heightened scrutiny is required." Id_ These factors combined to make Robbins's case sui generis, the court noted that it "consider[ed] this case to be one of a kind, not to be repeated:" Id, at 564-65 (emphasis added): Thus, in order to recall a mandate, the above three factors must be established. Although his first contention is that this court should recall its mandate under Roblin's, Echols makes no showing that he has satisfied any of these three factors, other than the fact that his case, like Robbins's, involves the death penalty In Engram 1, State, 360 Ark: 140, 200 S.Wid 367 (2004), this court refused to recall the mandate in a death penalty case: There, the federal district court had directed Engram to dismiss his habeas corpus petition without prejudice so our court could consider any claim of mental retardation he might have under Atkins v: Virginia, 536 U.S: 304 (2002), our court held that Engram had exhausted his state remedies, and he was left to pursue his relief, if any, in the federal courts. [1] Here, as noted above, Echols can satisfy only one of the three Robbins criteria — his is a death penalty case: In Robbins, this court stressed that the death penalty "is a unique punishment that demands unique attention to procedural safeguards," Robbins, 353 Ark. at 561 Here, however, Echols does not even attempt to
ECH rILS V STATE ARK ] Cite as 360 Ark, 332 (2005) 337 establish that the facts of his case comport with the three "unique circumstances" that convinced a majority of this court to recall the mandate in Robbins: The Engram court noted that "[t]he purpose of recalling the mandate and reopening the case in Robbins was in order to correct an error in the appellate process," not an alleged error in the trial court, as was the case in Engram: Echols, however, does not raise the possibility of an error in the appellate process; instead, he merely claims that "the developments described [in his motion] warrant an order recalling the court's previousl y issued mandate and reopening the case for further proceedings in the circuit court " This claim is plainly insufficient to satisf y the requirements of Robbins and to justify the recalling of the mandate. In addition to his request to recall the mandate, Echols also asks this court to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of error coram nobts As noted above, this is his second such petition. The essence of his argument is that he was denied a fair trial, because his jury considered extraneous. improper, and unadmitted evidence against him in arriving at its conviction and death sentence; this alleged error, he claims, caused his jurors to harbor an impermissible bias against him: He further argues that those errors are "fundamental in nature and are founded on facts which would have prevented rendition of the judgment if known to the trial court, and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, were not brought forward before rendition of the judgment:" We begin with a discussion of the fundamental principles of error coram nobis. The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary writ; known more for its denial than its approval: Cloird v, State, 349 Ark: 33,76 S,W3(d 813 (2002), State v, Larimore, 341 Ark: 397, 17 S,W:3d 87 (2000), The function of the wnt of error coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which 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 judgment. Troghn v State, 257 Ark 644, 519 S W 2d 740 (1975): The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature: Clone]. 349 Ark, at 37. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark: 580, 986 S.W,2d 407 (1999), We have held that a wnt of error coram nobis was available to address certain _errors of the most fundamental nature that are found in one of four categories 1) insanity at the time of trial, 2)
liCilL)LS SIA1L 318 Cite as 360 Ark 332 (2005) [360 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: Cloird, supra, Penn v: State, 282 Ark: 571, 670 S.W:2d 426 (1984): Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid, Id. Although there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for relief Echols, 354 Ark at 419: Larimore v State, 327 Ark 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). In the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied. Echols, supra_ This court has held that due diligence requires that 1) the defendant be unaware of the fact at the time of trial, 2) he could not have, in the exercise of due diligence, presented the fact at trial, or 3) upon discovering the fact, did not delay bringing the petition. Id: at 419 (denying error coram nobis relief, which Echols claimed was proper because he had only recently discovered evidence to show he was incompetent at his trial, this court held it was obvious that he was aware of his mental history at the time of his trial); see also Laritnore, supra (citing John H Haley, Comment, Coram Nobis and the Convicted Innocent, 9 ARK L REV 118 (1954-55)); Penn v State, supra [2] At the outset, it should be noted that the basis for Echols's claim — i.e., that the jury considered improper and extraneous information in its consideration of his guilt — does not fall within any of the four categories of errors for which error coram nobis constitutes appropriate relief Although Echols maintains that his claims regarding jury-deliberation irregularities and impermissible jury bias should fall within the ambit of error coram twins, this court has specifically declined to extend the writ to remedy a case involving allegedly misleading responses by a juror during voir dire See Davis v State, 325 Ark 96, 925 S W 2d 768 (1996), [3] It has been more than ten years since Echols's conviction: This fact clearly demonstrates that Echols did not exercise due diligence in bringing his claims to light — especially in view of the fact that the point on which he relies (the jury's alleged consideration of Misskelley's confession) was known to the court, the prosecutor, and to Echols's defense team at the time of trial In his memorandum brief, he points out that, dunng trial, the trial court denied his motion for mistrial when one of the police witnesses inadvertently mentioned Misskelley's statement, At that time, the court stated, "I suggest that there isn't a soul up on
ECHOLS STATE ARk Cite as 360 Ark: 332 (2005) 339 that jury or in this courtroom that doesn't know Mr: Misskelley gave a statement." Thus, Echols should have been aware from the time of his trial and conviction of the possthihry that the jury might have been aware of and considered this extraneous information [4] For these two reasons — coram nobis is not applicable to address and correct the errors that allegedly occurred here, and Echols failed to exercise due diligence in raising these claims — we decline to reinvest the trial court with Jurisdiction to consider Echols's petition for writ of error coram nobis.4 Indeed, Echols raised the issue of the jury 's improper consideration of the fact of Jessie Misskelle y 's statement (hinny trial, as noted above, he moved for mistrial, which was denied, and he assigned error to this ruling on appeal In addition, Echols raised a somewhat sinular argument in his Rule 37 appeal, wherein he claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective during von dire for fnling to adequatel y question jurors regarding pretrial publicity and their knowledge of Misskelley's confession Thus, essentially the same arguments he now attempts to raise in a petition for writ of error foram noLus %A, ere known to him prior to this point in time Thus, Echols has failed to comply with the due diligence facet of error roram nobis, as he could Ian, pn-,,-nted these facts at trial However, even if we were to perinit the trial court to reconsider this case Echols's chim ofjuror misconduct is extremel y untimel y It is true that this court held in Lanmore State, 309 Ark 414,833 S W 2d 358 (1992), that a new trial was warranted where inadmissible materials made their way into the jurs room and "could well have influenced the pry to decide that appellant was guilty" Lan mote 111 9 Ark at 360-61 However, Larimore tiled a motion for new trial almost immediatel y after the verdict was rendered Id çfCigasnero State, 310 Ark 504, 838 S W2d 361 (1992) (a motion for new trial that alleged jury misconduct, but which was filed more than thirty days from the date of the judgment, was untimely) See al5o Ark Code Ann 5 16-89 -130(c)(7) (new trial may be granted upon a showing of jury misconduct that causes the court to conclude that the defendant has not received a fair trial), Ark R Crim P 33,3(b) (motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days of the judgment) Echols's claim of juror misconduct has been brought over a decade after his conviction Clearly, this is a matter which could ha v e been brought in a motion for new tr i al immediately after the verdict and conviction, but the argument is now untimely In addition, j urors are presumed to be unbiased and are presumed to follow the instructions given to them by the court See Kelly r State, 350 Ark 238,85 S W 3d 893 (2002), Smith v State, 343 Ark 552,39 S W 3d 739 (2001), State v Robbins, 342 Ark 262,27 S W 3d 419 (2000), Logan r State, 300 Ark 35, 776 S W2d 341 (1 089 ) Here, when the witness mentioned M i sskelley's statement, the trial court admonished the jur y to disregard and not consider the last response " This court will not presume bias or presume that a jury is incapable of following the trial court's instructions Kelly, supra Finally, Echols's attempt to prove that his jury considered the Misskelley statement is improper, Ark R Evid 606(b) precludes inquiry into a juror's state of mind during dehberations_ the rule onl y permits inquiry into whether any external influence or infor-
340 [360 Before we conclude this opinion, we must comment on the DNA testing Echols requested pursuant to Ark- Code Ann 16-112-201 et seq, (Supp: 2003): Although Echols first filed his motion for DNA testing in September of 2002, the motion is still pending in the circuit court, and the proceeding has remained unresolved since that time: We wish to impress upon the trial court, the State, and Echols's attorneys that this matter needs to be resolved, Although we understand that there are significant constraints and pressures upon the State Crime Laboratory, we also stress that this case has been going on since 1996, and there is a need for finality in this matter Indeed, in our last per curiam opinion granting an extension, we declined to issue an open-ended stay. Instead, we granted a stay for a period of seventy days from the date of the opinion rendered on June 19, 2003. We therefore encourage the parties and the court to take action to ensure that the DNA testing is addressed and concluded: IMBER, J, concurs,
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.