Hall v. State, CR-97-1344
| Decision Date | 20 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-97-1344,CR-97-1344 |
| Citation | 562 S.W.3d 829 |
| Parties | Androus HALL, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petitioner Androus Hall brings this petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case. In the petition, Hall contends that there were defects in both the trial and the appellate processes, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment.1 Because Hall does not state a ground for the writ, the petition is denied.
The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because 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. 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. Green v. State , 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. 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 it been known to the trial court and which, 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. Id. 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.
In 1997, a jury found Hall guilty of aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and attempted rape. An aggregate sentence of 576 months' imprisonment was imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Hall v. State , CR-97-1344 (Ark. App. Nov. 18, 1998) (unpublished).
Hall argues that the trial court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals made errors that amount to a breakdown in both the trial and the direct-appeal proceedings. We need not list the errors alleged by Hall because error by the trial court or the appellate court is not a ground to grant a writ of error coram nobis. Errors that occurred at trial could have been addressed at trial. Accordingly, assertions of trial error that were raised at trial, or which could have been raised at trial, are not within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Howard , 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Such claims are not within the scope of the limited grounds on which the writ may issue, and a coram nobis action does not provide the petitioner with a means to retry his or her case. Carner v. State , 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d 634.
Likewise, any errors that occurred on direct appeal could have been addressed before the mandate of the appellate court was issued in a petition for rehearing and petition for review. We have held that a coram nobis proceeding is not a means to challenge the review conducted by the appellate court on direct appeal. Id. ().
Hall contends that the writ should issue because there was no DNA evidence presented at trial and there was no fingerprint evidence tying him to the offenses of which he was convicted. The assertions of insufficient evidence to sustain the judgment do not state a basis for granting a coram nobis petition. An attack on the sufficiency of the evidence constitutes a direct attack on the judgment and is not within the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Grady v. State , 2017 Ark. 245, 525 S.W.3d 1. Allegations that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support a finding of the defendant's guilt are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobbins v. State
...guilty. Dobbins's claim of insufficient evidence to support the judgment is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. Hall v. State , 2018 Ark. 377, 562 S.W.3d 829. Allegations that the evidence in a criminal trial was not sufficient to support a finding of guilt are to be addressed and s......
-
Swanigan v. State
...a finding of the defendant's guilt are to be addressed at trial and, when appropriate, on the record on direct appeal. Hall v. State , 2018 Ark. 377, 562 S.W.3d 829. Swanigan does not establish the existence of facts that could not have been discovered at the time of trial. Roberts , 2013 A......
-
Jones v. State
...for the writ, and a conclusory statement that there is newly discovered evidence does not warrant coram nobis relief. Hall v. State , 2018 Ark. 377, 562 S.W.3d 829. Allegations that are too vague and lack the requisite factual support do not support issuance of the writ. Alexander v. State ......
-
Martin v. State
...on direct appeal could have been addressed in a petition for rehearing before the mandate of this court was issued. Hall v. State , 2018 Ark. 377, 562 S.W.3d 829 ; see also Martin , 328 Ark. at 433, 944 S.W.2d at 519 (no reversible errors found after a review of adverse rulings). A coram no......