McClinton v. State

Cite as 2015 Ark. 161SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-1060
EDMOND McCLINTON Opinion Delivered April 9, 2015
PETITIONER
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
V. JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
STATE OF ARKANSAS [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
RESPONDENT COURT, NO. 35CR-12-106]
HONORABLE BERLIN JONES,
JUDGE
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2014, petitioner Edmond McClinton was found guilty of rape in the Jefferson County
Circuit Court, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Counsel for petitioner timely filed
an appeal from that verdict, and the appeal remains pending before this court. Petitioner has
now filed a pro se petition asking that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider
a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 Because petitioner has failed to show that the writ is
warranted, the petition is denied.
The filing of the transcript in an appellate court deprives a trial court of jurisdiction.
Green v. State, 2011 Ark. 134 (per curiam). Thus, a petition to reinvest jurisdiction is necessary
after the transcript has been lodged on appeal because a circuit court can entertain a petition for
writ of error coram nobis only after this court grants permission. Id. This court will grant such
1
For clerical purposes, the instant motion was assigned the same docket number as the
pending direct appeal.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 161permission only when it appears the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Echols v.
State, 354 Ark. 414, 418, 125 S.W.3d 153, 156 (2003). In making such a determination, we 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. Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273; 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, 986 S.W.2d 407 (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, 425 S.W.3d 771; Carter v. State, 2012 Ark. 186 (per curiam); Penn v. State, 282 Ark.
2Cite as 2015 Ark. 161571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)).
Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to coram-nobis relief because the trial court rather
than the jury fixed his punishment; the trial court failed to rule on a number of defense motions;
he was denied a prompt first appearance, arrest warrant, preliminary hearing, grand jury, and
arraignment; his conviction violated Arkansas law, and he was not afforded a fair trial; corpus
delicti was not established, and probable cause was not examined by the trial court. We find no
ground for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. As stated, a writ of error coram nobis
is an extraordinary remedy that is available only where there is an error of fact extrinsic to the
record that could not have been raised in the trial court. It is evident on the face of the petition
that the alleged grounds for relief could easily have been discerned at the time of the proceedings
and raised in the trial court; that is, none of the allegations of error was such that it could not
have been settled at trial.
Petition denied.
3