Sims v. State , 2015 Ark. 281 ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. 281
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-11-813
DEONDRAE R. SIMS Opinion Delivered June 18, 2015
PETITIONER
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
V. JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
STATE OF ARKANSAS [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
RESPONDENT COURT, NO. 35CR-09-556]
HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
JUDGE
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2011, petitioner Deondrae R. Sims was convicted in the Jefferson County Circuit
Court of first-degree murder and committing a terroristic act and was sentenced to an aggregate
term of 360 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Sims v. State,
2012 Ark. App. 472.
Now before us is Sims’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to
consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 A petition for leave to proceed in the circuit
court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis
after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Echols v. State, 354
Ark. 414, 125 S.W.3d 153 (2003). This court will grant such permission only when it appears
the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Id. In making such a determination, we
1
The petition is assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal from the judgment
of conviction.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 281
look to the reasonableness of the allegations of the petition and to the existence of the
probability of the truth thereof. Id.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy more known for its denial
than its approval. Id. The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice
and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. We have held that a writ of error
coram nobis is available to address certain errors that are found in one of four categories:
insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor,
or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Id. The
function of the writ 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 circuit court and which,
through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of
judgment. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. Coram-nobis proceedings are attended
by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Id.
Sims argues that jurisdiction should be reinvested in the circuit court to consider a coram-
nobis petition on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice has resulted because he was not
afforded postconviction counsel to assist him in raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. Specifically, Sims asserts that the writ is available, or should be made available, to “fill
the void” where postconviction counsel is not guaranteed in proceedings that are held pursuant
to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. It is well-settled that claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are not cognizable in error-coram-nobis proceedings. State v. Tejeda-Acosta,
2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673. Such claims are brought pursuant to Rule 37.1, and error-
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 281
coram nobis proceedings are not a substitute for proceedings under Rule 37.1. Id.
Sims cites Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) and Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833 (8th
Cir. 2013) in support of his contention that grounds for the writ should be expanded to include
ineffective-assistance claims. Specifically, Sims asserts that Trevino and Sasser stand for the
proposition that Arkansas’s postconviction procedural process does not provide a meaningful
review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. While we are mindful of the holdings in
Trevino and Sasser, neither requires this court to expand the scope of a coram-nobis proceeding
to permit a collateral challenge to a judgment of conviction that would otherwise be brought
pursuant to Rule 37.1. Jarrett v. State, 2014 Ark. 272 (per curiam).
Because Sims has not stated a claim cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding, we decline
to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a coram-nobis petition.2
Petition denied.
2
Because it is clear from the petition that Sims failed to state any ground for relief
cognizable in a proceeding for coram-nobis relief, we need not consider his assertion that he
proceeded with due diligence in making application for relief. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d
852.
3