Martin v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 2012
• Docket Number: No. CR 95-1314,CR 95-1314
• Parties: LAWRENCE EDWARD MARTIN PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2012 Ark. 44

LAWRENCE EDWARD MARTIN PETITIONER

v.STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

No. CR 95-1314

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered February 2, 2012

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST

JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT

TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT

OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND TO BE PRESENT AT

RULING/HEARING [PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 94-2146]

PETITION DENIED; MOTIONS MOOT.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Lawrence Edward Martin brings this petition in which he asks this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.¹ Petitioner would challenge his conviction, affirmed by this court, on the charge of capital murder. See Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997). Along with his petition, petitioner filed motions that seek appointment of counsel and that request his presence for any hearing on the matter.² Petitioner has failed to present a claim that would warrant the writ, and we deny the petition. The motions are therefore moot.

Petitioner lists three bases for the writ in his petition. In the first, he asserts that his arrestwas a pretext for a search and that certain evidence should not, as a result, have been admitted. In his second ground for relief, petitioner alleges that the trial court did not provide a mental evaluation, that it was required to do so, and that a mental evaluation would have shown that he was suffering from an allergy and mental obsession. In the last claim in the petition, petitioner asserts that there was new evidence that he discovered during a hearing in which the trial court stated that petitioner had been charged with additional charges and that those additional charges had been dismissed. Petitioner argues that this change resulted in a conviction on a charge that had not been made.

A prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court. Kelly v. State, 2010 Ark. 180 (per curiam). A petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court is necessary after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal because the circuit court may entertain a petition for the writ only after this court grants permission. Id. (citing Mills v. State, 2009 Ark. 463 (per curiam)). Petitioner has therefore appropriately sought leave in this court to proceed in the trial court.

The remedy in a proceeding for a writ of error coram nobis is exceedingly narrow and appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. Burks v. State, 2011 Ark. 173 (per curiam). A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Whitham v. State, 2011 Ark. 28 (per curiam). To warrant a writ of error coram nobis,a petitioner has the burden of bringing forth some fact, extrinsic to the record, that was not known at the time of trial. Pinder v. State, 2011 Ark. 401 (per curiam). This court has previously recognized that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address errors found in only 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. Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (per curiam).

This court is not required to accept the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis at face value. Scott v. State, 2009 Ark. 437 (per curiam). We grant permission to proceed with a petition for the writ only when it appears the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Whitham, 2011 Ark. 28.

Petitioner's claims are largely based upon trial error, rather than hidden or unknown facts. Issues of trial error, even those of constitutional dimension, could have been raised at trial or in some other legal proceeding and are not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding. Pinder, 2011 Ark. 401. Petitioner's claim that the search was illegal is just such a claim. See id. He has not alleged any new information that, if not previously hidden in some way, could have resulted in suppression of the evidence. Instead, petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to cross-examine a witness, and he proposes constitutional arguments for suppression of the evidence. We have consistently held that such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. 542 (per curiam); Benton v. State, 2011 Ark. 211 (per curiam); Pierce v....