Smith v. State , 2016 Ark. LEXIS 161 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 201
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CR-02-228
Opinion Delivered May
5, 2016
JAMES E. SMITH
PETITIONER PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICITON IN THE TRIAL
V. COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
STATE OF ARKANSAS NOBIS; PRO SE MOTION
RESPONDENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, NO. 35CR-99-724]
PETITION DENIED; MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner James E. Smith was found guilty by a jury of two counts of rape for
engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend’s daughters when they were both under
the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty years’
imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Arkansas Court of
Appeals. Smith v. State, CR-02-228 (Ark. App. Jan. 8, 2003) (unpublished) (original docket
no. CACR 02-228). Smith subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Rule 37.1 in the trial
court. The petition was denied, and we affirmed that order. Smith v. State, CR-05-294
(Ark. Feb. 23, 2006) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2012, Smith filed in this court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied. Smith v. State,
2012 Ark. 403 (per curiam). In 2014, petitioner filed a second petition seeking coram nobis
Cite as 2016 Ark. 201
relief, and it was dismissed as a successive petition. Smith v. State, 2014 Ark. 246 (per
curiam). On March 15, 2015, Smith filed a third petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was also dismissed as
successive. Smith v. State, 2015 Ark. 188, 461 S.W.3d 345 (per curiam). Smith’s first three
petitions challenged his convictions on the basis that the two victims had made inconsistent
statements, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence, the prosecution fabricated
evidence, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Now before this court is Smith’s fourth pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in
the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Smith raises allegations
not raised in the first three petitions, contending that his judgment of conviction was illegally
rendered by a trial court that lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to an invalid arrest
warrant and an insufficient information. Smith contends that the arrest warrant was invalid
because it was not signed by the court and asserts that the criminal information was
insufficient because it was not signed by the prosecutor or filed by the circuit clerk. Smith
also argues that his counsel conspired with the prosecutor and the trial court to conceal these
deficiencies because the trial court had been deprived of subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith
has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated below, Smith’s
new allegations fail to raise claims that are cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding
and are otherwise wholly without merit. Because the petition is without merit, Smith’s
motion for appointment of counsel is moot.
We first note that a petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court
where the judgment was entered is necessary because the trial court can entertain a petition
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 201
for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we
grant permission. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, at 11, 425 S.W.3d 771, 778. A writ of
error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy more known for its denial than its
approval. Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, at 4, 403 S.W.3d 38, 42–43. Coram-nobis
proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid.
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 trial
court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward
before rendition of the judgment. Id. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a
fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. 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 for addressing certain
errors that are found in one of 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. Id.
Smith does not raise allegations sufficient to establish the existence of some fact
extrinsic to the record because any defects in the arrest warrant or in the criminal
information could have been discovered and raised in the trial court. Allen, 2014 Ark. 368,
at 2, 440 S.W.3d at 330–31. Claims that a petitioner either could have known, or knew,
at the time of trial do not provide grounds for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis.
3
Cite as 2016 Ark. 201
Rodgers v. State, 2013 Ark. 294, at 3 (per curiam); see also Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, at
21, 403 S.W.3d 38, 51.
Furthermore, the contention that the trial court’s alleged lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction was deliberately concealed from Smith has no evidentiary support and is
otherwise without merit. A trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine
cases involving violations of criminal statutes, and trial error does not deprive a court of
jurisdiction. Henderson v. White, 2011 Ark. 361, at 2–3 (per curiam). An alleged error in an
amended information would not take away the trial court’s personal or subject-matter
jurisdiction. Moore v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 380, at 2 (per curiam). A court with personal and
subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant in a criminal proceeding has authority to
render judgment. Id. We have held that an information is sufficient if it names the
defendant, the offense charged, the statute under which the charge was made, the court and
county where the alleged offense was committed, and if it set forth the principal language
of the statute and the asserted facts constituting the offense. Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421,
423, 938 S.W.2d 843, 844-45 (1997). Smith’s allegations fail to demonstrate that the
information was deficient. Nevertheless, even if the information were insufficient, the
subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court would not be implicated when the sufficiency
of the information is questioned. Id.
Likewise, an illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as either a bar to
subsequent prosecution or an absolute argument against a valid conviction. Biggers v. State,
317 Ark. 414, 420–21, 878 S.W.2d 717, 720 (1994). An invalid arrest may call for the
suppression of a confession or other evidence, but it does not entitle a defendant to be
4
Cite as 2016 Ark. 201
discharged from responsibility for the offense. Id. (citing O’Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424,
426, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984)). This court has made clear that the trial court’s jurisdiction
to try an accused does not depend upon the validity of the arrest of the accused and does
not, standing alone, vitiate a valid conviction. Chestang v. State, 2015 Ark. 372, at 3 (per
curiam).
Smith’s allegations of an invalid arrest warrant and insufficient information are not
cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding because the alleged deficiencies were not extrinsic
to the record and could have been discovered at trial. Smith fails to establish that such
deficiencies would have prevented the rendition of the judgment.
Petition denied. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Moot.
5