Croston v. State ( 2013 )

Cite as 2013 Ark. 504
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-13-866
Opinion Delivered December 5, 2013
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
DETRICK D. CROSTON FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT
APPELLANT COURT, 23CR-04-1061
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. MAGGIO,
v. JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
APPELLEE MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2004, appellant Detrick D. Croston was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery
and theft of property and sentenced as a habitual offender to 180 months’ imprisonment and
a fine of $1000. No appeal was taken, and a pro se motion for belated appeal was denied by this
court. Croston v. State, CR-06-425 (Ark. May 11, 2006) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2012, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis
challenging the judgment. This appeal arises from the denial of that petition.
Now before us is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. We
need not address the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record that appellant could
not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. See Demeyer v. State, 2013 Ark.
456 (per curiam). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. An appeal from
an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of error
coram nobis, will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not
prevail. Morgan v. State, 2013 Ark. 341 (per curiam).
Cite as 2013 Ark. 504
In the coram-nobis petition, appellant alleged that the trial court erred when it declined
to do the following at trial: grant a continuance so that a pretrial psychological evaluation could
be conducted on appellant and so that a prior psychological evaluation on file in another division
of the circuit court could be considered; consider certain proof that appellant was mentally
deficient; allow a certain psychological evaluation to be introduced into evidence at trial; suspend
all proceedings so that a psychological evaluation by the State could be conducted on appellant.
The claims of trial error raised by appellant were not within the purview of a coram-nobis
petition. Thompson v. State, 2012 Ark. 339 (per curiam) (mere trial error does not form a basis for
coram-nobis relief). A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known
for its denial than its approval. Demeyer, 2013 Ark. 456; Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (per
curiam); Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. The writ is allowed only under
compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental
nature. McDaniels v. State, 2012 Ark. 465 (per curiam). 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. Cromeans, 2013
Ark. 273; Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 583, 986 S.W.2d 407, 409 (1999) (per curiam). 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.
McFerrin v. State, 2012 Ark. 305 (per curiam); Cloird v. State, 2011 Ark. 303 (per curiam). The
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. 504
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.
Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (per curiam). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong
presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, ___ S.W.3d
___; Carter v. State, 2012 Ark. 186 (per curiam); Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426
(1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)). The standard of review of
a denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying the writ. McClure v. State, 2013 Ark. 306 (per curiam).
Clearly, an issue of trial error is an issue known at the time of trial that could have been
addressed and settled at trial and on direct appeal. As such, it does not provide a ground to
grant a writ of error coram nobis. Anderson v. State, 2012 Ark. 270, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam).
This applies even to issues of trial error of constitutional dimension that could have been raised
in the trial court. Demeyer, 2013 Ark. 456; Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin v.
State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam).
As appellant did not raise a claim within the scope of a coram-nobis proceeding, the trial
court did not err in denying the petition. A coram-nobis proceeding is not a substitute for
raising an issue at trial and on the record on direct appeal if a ruling on an issue is adverse to the
defendant. See Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
Detrick D. Croston, pro se appellant.
No response.
3