DOYLE JONES v. sTATE OF ARKANSAS

Cite as 2022 Ark. 18SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-04-632
DOYLE JONES Opinion Delivered: February 3, 2022
PETITIONER
V. PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
STATE OF ARKANSAS COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
RESPONDENT FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, NO. 72CR-03-850A]
PETITION DENIED.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Doyle Jones petitions this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to allow
him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Jones fails to state a ground on
which the writ can issue, the petition is denied.
I.
A Washington County jury convicted Jones of arson in December 2003. He was
sentenced as a habitual offender to 480 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. Jones v. State, CACR-04-632
(Ark. App. March 16, 2005). Jones now claims the record contains misinformation
concerning two prior convictions that have affected his eligibility for parole. These two
convictions were in 1973 and 1974 and factored into his designation as a Level 3 sex offender
by the Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment
Committee.1
II.
The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit
court can only entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been
affirmed on appeal with this court’s permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d
61. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark.
397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption
that the judgment of conviction is valid. Washington v. State, 2021 Ark. 13, 614 S.W.3d 817.
The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed
some fact that would have prevented its rendition had the circuit court known about it and
that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before
rendition of the judgment. Newman, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the
burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Roberts v. State,
2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to
address errors of the most fundamental nature. Ward v. State, 2020 Ark. 386, 611 S.W.3d
1In 2013, Jones filed a petition for declaratory and judicial review in the Jefferson
County Circuit Court challenging the Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment
Committee’s designation that was dismissed as untimely. Jones appealed to this court, and
the appeal was dismissed. Jones v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Assessment Comm.,
2014 Ark. 135 (per curiam).
2
182. 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. Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
Because Jones does not allege any recognized reason for coram nobis relief, his
petition is outside the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Moreover, the claim does not
directly pertain to the 2004 arson conviction. But even if the parole claim concerned Jones’s
conviction for arson in 2004, claims regarding parole-eligibility status do not demonstrate a
fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record and, consequently, do not fit within one of
the categories eligible for coram nobis relief. Jefferson v. State, 2019 Ark. 408, 591 S.W.3d
310.
Petition denied.
Doyle Anthony Jones, pro se petitioner.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for respondent.
3