Flanagan v. State, 2010 Ark. 140 (Ark. 3/18/2010)

• Decision Date: 18 March 2010
• Docket Number: CR 06-88.
• Citation: 2010 Ark. 140
• Parties: Judy Ann FLANAGAN Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas Respondent.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1

2010 Ark. 140

Judy Ann FLANAGAN Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas Respondent.

CR 06-88.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered March 18, 2010.

Pro se Petition to Reinvest Jurisdiction in the Trial Court to Consider Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis [Circuit Court of Craighead County, Eastern District, CR 2004-34]

Petition Denied.

PER CURIAM.

In 2005, petitioner Judy Ann Flanagan was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Flanagan v. State, 368 Ark. 143, 243 S.W.3d 866 (2006).

Now before us is petitioner's pro se petition seeking permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis.¹ After a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis only after we grant permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, ___ S.W.3d ___.

A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 33, 76 S.W.3d 813 (2002) (per curiam). 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 circuit court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. Newman, 2009 Ark. 539 (citing Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (2008) (per curiam)).

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 was 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. Id.

This court will grant permission for a petitioner to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis only when it appears the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Newman, 2009 Ark. 539. 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. Although there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for relief. Id. In the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied. Due diligence requires that (1) the defendant be unaware of the fact at the time of the trial; (2) the defendant could not have, in the exercise of due diligence, presented the fact at trial; and (3) the defendant, after discovering the fact, did not delay bringing the petition. Id. The requirements are a sequence of events, each of which a petitioner must show to prove due diligence. Id.

As grounds for issuance of the writ, petitioner first contends that she was mentally incompetent at the time of trial as a result of medications that she was taking at that time. Petitioner on direct appeal raised a similar claim, arguing that one of the statements she gave to police was inadmissible because she was not capable of voluntarily waiving her right against self-incrimination. She asserted on appeal that she had low intelligence, a history of mental illness, and was taking three prescriptions for mental illness at the time she made one of the statements. This court held that the question of petitioner's competence to waive her rights at the time the statement was given was a matter of witness credibility, and, considering the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court did not err in admitting the statement into evidence.

Petitioner argues now that if the jury had been made aware of her psychiatric problems over the period of her entire lifetime, including her suicide attempts, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Petitioner faults the trial court, the prosecutor, and her attorney at trial for...