Edwards v. State , 2013 Ark. 517 ( 2013 )

Cite as 2013 Ark. 517
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-13-789
Opinion Delivered December 12, 2013
FLOYD EDWARDS PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
APPELLANT OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF
[WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT
v. COURT, 72CR-08-1823, 72CR-09-889,
72CR-09-1404]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2009, appellant Floyd Edwards entered a negotiated plea of guilty to multiple felony
offenses and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment with 204 of those months suspended.
He was also ordered to pay restitution and certain costs. In 2013, appellant filed in the trial
court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he alleged that the trial court did
not follow proper procedure when the guilty plea was entered and that he was not afforded
effective assistance of counsel in the plea proceeding. The trial court denied the petition, and
appellant lodged an appeal from that order. Now before us is appellant’s pro se 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. An appeal
from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of
Cite as 2013 Ark. 517
error coram nobis, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could
not prevail. Demeyer v. State, 2013 Ark. 456 (per curiam); Morgan v. State, 2013 Ark. 341 (per
curiam). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial
than its approval. Charland v. State, 2013 Ark. 452 (per curiam); 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
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
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. 517
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).
First, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that appellant raised was not within
the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. Allegations that counsel did not render the effective
assistance guaranteed a criminal defendant by the Sixth Amendment are properly raised in a
timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1
(2013). A petition for writ of error coram nobis is not a substitute for proceeding under Rule
37.1. State v. Tejeda-Acosta, 2013 Ark. 217, ___ S.W.3d ___.
With respect to appellant’s contention that the trial court did not follow proper
procedure when the plea was taken in 2009, the argument could have been made at the time the
plea was entered. In an apparent attempt to skirt the fact that coram-nobis relief is not available
to address issues that could have been raised at the time of trial, appellant argued that he was not
aware when the plea was entered of the immigration and deportation consequences that could
arise from his having entered a plea of guilty. This court has specifically held, however, that a
lack of knowledge concerning potential immigration and deportation issues does not raise an
error of fact extrinsic to the record that is cognizable in a coram-nobis petition. Tejeda-Acosta,
2013 Ark. 217, ___ S.W.3d ___.
While appellant contended that his plea was coerced, his arguments centered on the
advice his attorney gave him when the plea was entered and the failure of the trial court to
inform him of the immigration and deportation implications of a guilty plea. We declined in
Estrada v. State, 2011 Ark. 479 (per curiam), to expand the purview of a coram-nobis petition to
3
Cite as 2013 Ark. 517
include the allegation that a petitioner was not properly advised of immigration and deportation
consequences when the petitioner’s plea of guilty was entered. Appellant here failed to offer any
substantiation that he was subjected to any specific mistreatment. See Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark.
606 (per curiam). Appellant’s claim did not rise to the level of coercion required to demonstrate
that a writ of error coram nobis should issue. See Demeyer, 2013 Ark. 456 (citing McClure, 2013
Ark. 306); see also Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606 (per curiam) (Petitioner’s mere fear of lengthier
term of imprisonment if he chose to go to trial rather than enter a plea of guilty was not
sufficient to demonstrate the level of coercion required to warrant issuance of the writ.).
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
Floyd Edwards, pro se appellant.
No response.
4