Opinion ID: 4537950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confession of Codefendant

Text: Von Holt also alleges that his codefendant, Curtis Jones, sent him a handwritten letter admitting that the drugs found in the truck were Jones’s and that Von Holt gave the letter to his trial counsel before trial.Von Holt claims that his counsel and the prosecution suppressed the letter because neither presented the letter to the trial court or to the jury. To establish a Brady violation, three elements are required: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the State must have suppressed the evidence, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued. Ivory v. State, 2019 Ark. 386, 589 S.W.3d 378. Because Von Holt admits that he and his trial counsel had the letter before trial, the State did not withhold it 3 in a manner that raises a Brady violation.2 See Ivory, 2019 Ark. 386, 589 S.W.3d 378. Because Von Holt has failed to establish a ground for issuance of the writ, we deny his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petition denied. Dusti Standridge, for petitioner. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent. 2 He raised this claim and this court addressed it in Von Holt’s appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Von Holt v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 432, at 3, 585 S.W.3d 192, 195. 4