Title: Larimore v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Gregory R. LARIMORE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-219                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 10, 1997


1.   Criminal procedure -- postconviction relief -- once undertaken
     proceeding must be fundamentally fair. -- Rule 37 of the
     Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the avenue for
     postconviction relief; subsection (c) provides that petitions
     entered after the affirmance of an appeal must be filed within
     sixty days after the mandate was issued by the appellate
     court; there is no constitutional right to a postconviction
     proceeding, but when a state undertakes to provide collateral
     relief, due process requires that the proceeding be
     fundamentally fair.

2.   Criminal procedure -- trial court's dismissal of petition as
     untimely affirmed -- argument that sixty-day deadline
     fundamentally unfair unsupported by authority. -- Where
     appellant's argument that the sixty-day filing requirement of
     Rule 37 was an unconstitutional deprivation of due process was
     not supported by citation of authority that would indicate
     that the sixty-day deadline was fundamentally unfair, the
     trial court's dismissal of the petition for relief under Rule
     37 as untimely was affirmed.

3.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- Rule 36
     petition distinguished. -- Error coram nobis proceedings are
     not interchangeable with proceedings under Rule 37; a Rule 37
     proceeding is for a mistake at trial, while a writ of error
     coram nobis is appropriate when an issue was not addressed or
     could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow
     hidden or unknown.

4.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- due
     diligence required in making application for relief. --     
     The time requirement for seeking a writ of error coram nobis
     is not limited to sixty days, but due diligence is required in
     making application for relief; 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.  

5.   Criminal procedure -- when writ of error coram nobis will lie
     -- circuit court can entertain writ after appeal only if
     supreme court grants permission. -- When a judgment has been
     affirmed by the supreme court, no application for a writ of
     error coram nobis may be made to the trial court unless
     permission to make such application has been given by the
     supreme court; the trial court is then reinvested with
     jurisdiction to hear the petition, conduct a hearing, and
     decide whether the writ is in order; if the court grants the
     writ, the remedy is a new trial; if it denies the writ, the
     remedy is a writ of certiorari.

6.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- when
     allowed. -- The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary
     remedy that should be allowed only under compelling
     circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the
     most fundamental nature; a presumption of regularity attaches
     to the criminal conviction being challenged; error coram nobis
     is available only where there is an error of fact extrinsic to
     the record, such as insanity at the time of trial, a coerced
     guilty plea, or material evidence withheld by the prosecutor
     that might have resulted in a different verdict; for the writ
     of error coram nobis to issue following the affirmance of a
     conviction by the supreme court, a fundamental error,
     extrinsic to the record, such as prosecutorial misconduct in
     withholding material evidence, must be shown.

7.   Criminal procedure -- writ of error coram nobis -- distinction
     between fundamental error and newly discovered evidence. --
     When there is no showing of a fundamental error, newly
     discovered evidence is not a basis for relief under coram
     nobis; remedy by way of coram nobis may not be invoked solely
     on the ground that a material witness testified falsely at the
     trial concerning a material issue of the case, or withheld
     facts that might have been material; neither may newly
     discovered evidence going merely to the merits of the issue be
     used as a basis for the writ; before a writ of error coram
     nobis may issue it must appear that the facts alleged as
     grounds for its issuance are such as would have precluded the
     entry of a judgment had they been available at the trial; not
     that such facts might have produced a different result had
     they been known to judge and jury.

8.   Criminal procedure -- State conceded its prosecutorial
     misconduct violated constitutional principles of due process -
     - trial court granted leave to consider writ of error coram
     nobis. -- Where the State entered into a "Stipulation of
     Undisputed Facts" that admitted that the State withheld and
     suppressed significant evidence that was exculpatory of the
     defendant and was material with respect to the crucial issue
     of time of death; that the defendant discovered the concealed
     exculpatory evidence after the time to file a Rule 37 petition
     had expired; and that the stipulation established a due
     process violation, the State conceded that its prosecutorial
     misconduct violated the constitutional principles of due
     process; this concession by the State led the supreme court to
     grant leave for consideration of a writ of error coram nobis
     by the trial court.

9.   Criminal procedure -- consideration of writ of error coram
     nobis -- guidelines for trial court. -- When a trial court
     considers whether to grant the writ of error coram nobis, the
     following guidelines should be considered: (1) the function of
     the writ of error coram nobis 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 that, through no negligence or fault of the
     defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of
     judgment; (2) coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong
     presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid; the
     court is not required to accept at face value the allegations
     of the petition; (3) due diligence is required in making
     application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse
     for delay, the petition will be denied; and, (4) the mere
     naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded
     will not suffice; the application should make a full
     disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not merely state
     conclusions as to the nature of such facts.


     Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; Samuel Turner, Judge;
affirmed in part; reversed in part; and leave granted for
consideration of writ of error coram nobis.
     Daniel G. Ritchey, Kent J. Rubens, and Bill W. Bristow, for
appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Olan W. Reeves, Sr. Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Petitioner Gregory R. Larimore was convicted in 1990 of first-
degree murder in the death of his wife, June Larimore.  We reversed
that conviction, and he was again convicted in 1993 upon retrial. 
We affirmed the second conviction, and the mandate was issued on
June 29, 1994.  On May 3, 1995, Larimore filed a petition for
postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.  His Rule 37
petition was based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in
failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.  Following
the State's motion to dismiss, he amended his petition and asserted
that relief should alternatively be provided through a writ of
error coram nobis.  Based on stipulations entered into solely for
the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the
petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction because the petition was
untimely filed.  Larimore appeals the order of dismissal.  We
affirm in part, reverse in part, and grant leave to the Crittenden
County Circuit Court for consideration of a writ of error coram
nobis.
     As this is the third time this case has come before us, a
review of the facts is appropriate.
                Matters from Earlier Proceedings
     Shortly before noon on January 11, 1990, the body of June
Larimore was found on the bedroom floor of her Blytheville home. 
She had been stabbed 134 times with a knife that had been cleaned
and replaced in a cutlery block in the kitchen.  Her husband,
petitioner Larimore, arrived at work before 7:00 a.m.  According to
him, his wife was alive and sleeping in bed when he left their home
that morning between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m.
     At the first trial, Larimore was convicted of the first degree
murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment.  The State's
case was structured on the theory that she was murdered between
2:00 and 4:00 a.m., and could not have been alive when Larimore
left for work.  In Larimore v. State (Larimore I), 309 Ark. 414,