Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 

No. CR-10-980

ROBERT JOSEPH MOTEN

PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered January 21, 2016

PRO SE PETITION AND AMENDED 

PETITION TO REINVEST 

JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL 

COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM 

NOBIS AND MOTION FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[ARKANSAS COUNTY CIRCUIT 

COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT, NO. 

01CR-07-109]

AMENDED PETITION TREATED AS 

SUBSTITUTED PETITION; MOTION 

FOR HEARING TREATED AS 

AMENDED PETITION; PETITIONS

DENIED.

PER CURIAM 

Petitioner Robert Joseph Moten is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of 

Correction pursuant to a 2010 judgment reflecting his convictions on one count of first-degree 

battery and one count of second-degree battery with an aggregate sentence of 264 months’ 

imprisonment imposed on the two counts. On September 24, 2015, he filed a petition asking 

this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of 

error coram nobis. Moten later filed an amended petition, which he apparently wishes to 

substitute for the earlier petition. He also filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing in the 

matter, which is intended as a supplement to Moten’s amended petition. We therefore treat 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

2

the amended petition as a substituted petition and the motion for hearing as an amended 

petition, and we deny the petitions. 

A prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by 

means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request this court to reinvest 

jurisdiction in the trial court. Noble v. State, 2015 Ark. 141, 460 S.W.3d 774. Where the record 

for the underlying proceedings remains in this court, the circuit court is deprived of 

jurisdiction, and leave from this court is required before the circuit court may consider a 

petition for the writ. Id. This court will grant permission to proceed with a petition for the 

writ only when it appears, looking to the reasonableness of the allegations of the proposed 

petition and the existence of the probability of the truth of those allegations, that the proposed 

attack on the judgment is meritorious. Isom v. State, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662. This 

court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Penn v. State, 282 

Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). 

Error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its 

approval. White v. State, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285. The remedy is exceedingly narrow 

and appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at 

trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown. Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469, 192 S.W.3d 

248 (2004). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there 

existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition had it been known to the trial court 

and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before 

rendition of the judgment. White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285. 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

3

Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of 

conviction is valid. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374. This court has recognized 

four categories of error for which the writ is available: (1) insanity at the time of trial; (2) a 

coerced guilty plea; (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor; (4) a third-party 

confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Noble, 2015 Ark. 141, 

460 S.W.3d 774. The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice 

and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285. 

A brief summary of the facts established by the evidence presented at trial is necessary 

to understand the issues that Moten raises in his petition. The trial testimony established that 

Iesha Timmons and Curtis Abrams were at a club in Stuttgart for a birthday party. Moten’s 

friend, Jonathan Jones, approached Timmons while she was dancing. Timmons pushed Jones 

away when he placed his hands down the back of her pants. Abrams intervened, and Jones 

ended up on the floor with Abrams standing over him. At this point, Moten came up behind 

Abrams. Timmons saw Moten striking Abrams, and she pulled Moten away. She then realized 

that her arm was cut. Abrams had been stabbed in the back, the side, and the buttocks with a 

knife. Timmons’s wounds were not serious, but Abrams’s were. His wounds required 

hospitalization and surgery. 

Moten was convicted at a bench trial, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the 

judgment. Moten v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 417. Moten unsuccessfully pursued postconviction 

relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015), and this court affirmed the 

denial of relief. Moten v. State, 2013 Ark. 503 (per curiam). 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

4

In his petitions, Moten alleges that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), as his proposed grounds for the writ. Specifically, he points to 

an incident report filed by police officer Allison Davis, an affidavit stating facts to support 

probable cause for his arrest warrant, and Jones’s criminal history as evidence that he alleges 

the State suppressed. 

To establish a Brady violation by the State as grounds for coram-nobis relief, the 

evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because 

it is impeaching; the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or 

inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. Isom, 2015 Ark. 225, 462 S.W.3d 662. 

Assuming that the evidence otherwise meets the requirements of a Brady violation, and is both 

material and prejudicial, the withheld evidence must also have been such as to have prevented 

rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial, that is, the 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 at 

trial. See Camp v. State, 2012 Ark. 226 (per curiam). Moten fails to allege a Brady violation that 

would provide grounds for the writ because the evidence that he alleges was withheld would 

not have prevented rendition of the judgment if it had been known at the time of trial. 

Moten contends that the suppressed items would have furthered his claim of an illegal 

arrest. He asserts that the initial incident report and other items show that the statements in 

the probable-cause affidavit were false and therefore insufficient to establish probable cause 

for his arrest. As this court noted in our opinion affirming the denial of Moten’s petition for 

postconviction relief, a challenge to the probable cause for the warrant or the validity of an 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

5

arrest, without more, does not bring the outcome of the proceedings into question. See 

Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974); see also Mauppin v. State, 309 Ark. 235, 

831 S.W.2d 104 (1992) (holding that an illegal detention will not void a subsequent conviction). 

An illegal arrest, standing alone, does not vitiate a valid conviction. Chestang v. State, 2015 Ark 

372 (per curiam) (citing Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994)). 

In conjunction with this argument, Moten contends that he was unfairly singled out 

for prosecution because he declined to provide a statement concerning the events. Even if 

Moten could demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a sufficient basis for the arrest or that 

his arrest was illegal, such proof would not have prevented rendition of the judgment or 

establish the requisite prejudice to support issuance of the writ. To the extent that Moten may 

assert trial error or insufficient evidence concerning this issue, the claims are not within the 

purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. Carter v. State, 2015 Ark. 397 (per curiam). 

Moten also contends that the allegedly withheld evidence could have been used to 

impeach Jones and a police investigator, Detective Mark Duke. Moten admits, however, that 

neither Jones nor Duke testified at trial. Moten has therefore not shown that the allegedly 

withheld evidence could have been used for impeachment purposes and produced a different 

result at trial. He cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that the judgment would not 

have been rendered if the evidence had been available to impeach the witnesses. 

Moten also contends that the evidence might have been used to better present Jones 

as an alternate suspect, but he does not explain how the evidence may have been used at trial 

other than for impeachment purposes. Moten appears to contend that the incident report and 

other information allegedly withheld make it clear that Timmons did not see who cut her or 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 18

6

stabbed Abrams, but that fact was brought out on cross-examination at trial. Moten does not 

demonstrate that there was additional information in the allegedly withheld evidence that was 

not brought out at the trial. 

Moten fails to allege facts to support his allegations that material evidence was withheld 

that would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of 

trial; therefore, he fails to provide grounds for issuance of the writ. See Williamson v. State, 2015 

Ark. 373, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). The proposed attack on the judgment does not appear 

meritorious, and Moten has not stated cause to support reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial 

court for coram-nobis proceedings. Although the State contends that Moten has not pursued 

his claims with diligence, we need not consider whether Moten was diligent because he failed 

to present grounds to support issuance of the writ. See Barnett v. State, 2015 Ark. 190, 461 

S.W.3d 683 (per curiam). 

Amended petition treated as substituted petition; motion for hearing treated as 

amended petition; petitions denied.