Foreman v. State
| Decision Date | 15 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-96-1272,CR-96-1272 |
| Parties | EVERETT FOREMAN PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
2018 Ark. 330
EVERETT FOREMAN PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
No. CR-96-1272
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
November 15, 2018
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR-93-1341]
PETITION DENIED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Petitioner Everett Foreman asks that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. His basis for the writ is that a key witness has recanted her testimony. We do not find that Foreman has established a ground for the writ and deny the petition.
The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the judgment in Foreman's case was affirmed, and the trial court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Faulkens v. State, 2017 Ark. 291. 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
Page 2
defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. 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. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374. The writ is issued only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524.
In 1994, Foreman was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of an off-duty police officer and sentenced to life imprisonment. This court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. Foreman v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swanigan v. State
...it is well settled that a claim of recanted testimony, standing alone, is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. Foreman v. State , 2018 Ark. 330, 2018 WL 5993554 ; Smith v. State , 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (1940) (holding that the writ was not available to afford relief on the gro......
-
Chunestudy v. State
...to do so. It is well settled that recanted testimony, standing alone, is not cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding. Foreman v. State , 2018 Ark. 330 (citing Jackson v. State , 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242 ; Taylor v. State , 303 Ark. 586, 799 S.W.2d 519 (1990) ; Smith v. State , 20......
-
Scott v. State
...a result, Scott argues he was prejudiced by the trial court's reference to the victim's statement as a recantation. See Foreman v. State , 2018 Ark. 330, 2018 WL 5993554 (holding that recanted testimony, standing alone, is not cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding). Notwithstanding ......
-
Pitts v. State
...and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Foreman v. State , 2018 Ark. 330, 2018 WL 5993554. The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental n......