Cite as 2022 Ark. 37
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-00-587
Opinion Delivered: February 17, 2022
LEONARD NOBLE PRO SE FOURTH PETITION TO
REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE
PETITIONER TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A
V. PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS; MOTION FOR
STATE OF ARKANSAS LEAVE TO FILE SURRESPONSE
RESPONDENT [SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, GREENWOOD DISTRICT,
NO. 66GCR-98-72]
PETITION DENIED; MOTION
DENIED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Petitioner Leonard Noble brings this pro se fourth petition to reinvest jurisdiction in
the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, Noble
alleges that the State falsified or failed to disclose evidence against him. He also alleges
testimony about hair-comparison analysis was improperly admitted at his trial because hair-
comparison science is imprecise and suspect.1 We deny Noble’s petition because it fails to
contain facts that would support a cognizable claim for issuance of the writ.
I. Background
1
Noble has also filed a motion for leave to file a surresponse. We deny this motion
because the prevailing rules of procedure do not allow such a response
In 1999, a jury found Noble guilty of residential burglary and rape, and he was
sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 900 months’ imprisonment. The
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Noble v. State, CR-00-587 (Ark. App. Sept. 19, 2001)
(unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 00-587). Noble then petitioned three times for
leave to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to proceed with a petition for coram nobis
relief. We have denied each petition. See Noble v. State, 2016 Ark. 463, 505 S.W.3d 687 (per
curiam); Noble v. State, 2015 Ark. 215, 462 S.W.3d 341 (per curiam); Noble v. State, 2014
Ark. 332, 439 S.W.3d 47 (per curiam).
II. Nature of the Writ
Once a case has been affirmed on direct appeal, this court must grant permission
before a trial court can hear a writ of error coram nobis. 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). There is a presumption in coram nobis
proceedings that the judgment of conviction is valid. Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502
S.W.3d 524. The writ functions to secure relief from a judgment when some fact existed that
would have prevented the judgment’s rendition had the fact been known to the trial court
and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before
rendition. 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.
2
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 most commonly in four categories: (1) insanity
at the time of trial, (2) 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.
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. However, we have also extended the writ
under the “rule of reason” where (1) the State presented expert scientific opinion at trial; (2)
the expert was an agent of the government; and (3) that same government later repudiates
the expert’s scientific opinion. The rule of reason “is simply that the writ ought to be granted
or else a miscarriage of justice will result.” Strawhacker v. State, 2016 Ark. 348, at 7, 500
S.W.3d 716, 720 (cleaned up).
A Brady claim of material evidence withheld from the defense falls within the purview
of coram nobis relief. See generally Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Williams v. State,
2021 Ark. 190, 632 S.W.3d 734. Before the court can determine whether a Brady violation
has occurred, the petitioner must first establish that the material was available to the State
before trial and that the defense did not have it. Id.
III. Claims for Relief
Noble’s petition consists of transcribed testimony introduced at his trial. As to each
claim that the State withheld certain evidence, Noble makes self-defeating arguments by
referencing points at trial where that same evidence was discussed. Thus, he cannot establish
that he lacked material evidence at the time of his trial. Noble also claims the State failed to
3
disclose other evidence; but these claims fail too because they are conclusory and fail to
identify what evidence the State withheld and whether that evidence would have been
exculpatory. Nor does Noble explain how he was prejudiced. Rather, Noble’s petition
speculates that certain unidentified evidence must have been withheld because he can see
no other hypothesis.
Last, Noble raises a claim about the hair-comparison testimony. He contends that
hair-comparison testimony has been shown to be unreliable for identification. In two other
cases, we reinvested jurisdiction for a trial court to consider granting the writ based on
exaggerated scientific correlations linking a defendant to a crime through hair-comparison
testimony. See, e.g., Strawhacker, supra; Pitts v. State, 2016 Ark. 345, 501 S.W.3d 803. However,
this did not happen at Noble’s trial. The expert from the state crime lab testified that of all
the hairs and fibers collected at the scene, only one had similar characteristics to Noble’s hair
sample.2 Even then, the expert was cautious and testified that 10,000 individuals could have
had similar characteristics and that hair analysis was not a basis to identify someone. The
testimony was tempered, not exaggerated, and, importantly, has not been repudiated. Cf.
Strawhacker, 2016 Ark. 348, at 3, 500 S.W.3d at 718 (noting Department of Justice had
notified defendant that its expert “overstated the conclusion that may be appropriately
drawn” from hair-comparison analysis).
2
This court may take judicial notice in postconviction proceedings of the record on
direct appeal without the need to supplement the record. Lowery v. State, 2021 Ark. 97, at 8
n.2, 621 S.W.3d 140, 146.
4
Noble does not meet the criteria for granting the petition for writ of error coram
nobis under the rule of reason or any other ground.
Petition denied; motion denied.
Leonard Noble, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.
5