James Charles Fudge, Petitioner v. State of Arkansas, Respondent

Summary

The court denied Fudge’s second request to reinvest the circuit court with jurisdiction to consider coram-nobis relief. It held that his allegations of suppressed impeachment evidence were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts showing suppression, materiality, and prejudice sufficient to establish a Brady violation. The court also held that ineffective-assistance, trial-error, and sufficiency claims are not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding.