Rodgers v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 04-534,CR 04-534 |
| Citation | 2012 Ark. 193 |
| Parties | CHARLES GENTRY RODGERS PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
AND MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT AND TO AMEND PETITION
[PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2002-171]
MOTIONS DENIED; PETITION DENIED.
This court affirmed a judgment reflecting petitioner Charles Gentry Rodgers's conviction and life sentence for rape. Rodgers v. State, 360 Ark. 24, 199 S.W.3d 625 (2004). Petitioner has filed a petition in this court that seeks to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and two motions that seek to supplement and amend that request with a substituted petition or additional documents.1 Because the State had filed its response prior to the motions to supplement and amend, and because petitioner's proposed additions and amendments would not further his application for relief,2 we deny the requests tosupplement and amend the petition . Because petitioner has stated no basis to warrant issuance of the writ, we deny the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court.
A prisoner who has appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction reflected in that judgment by means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court. Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam) (citing Kelly v. State, 2010 Ark. 180 (per curiam)). A petition in this court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after this court grants permission. Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam).
It is a petitioner's burden to show that the writ is warranted. Scott v. State, 2009 Ark. 437 (per curiam). This court will grant permission for a petitioner to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis only when it appears that the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Hogue v. State, 2011 Ark. 496 (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. Martin, 2012 Ark. 44.
Petitioner makes a number of claims in support of his request to proceed for the writ, all of which appear to concern allegedly false statements made by the prosecution about certain continuances and a mental-evaluation report. The allegedly false statements relate to a claimed speedy-trial violation. Petitioner also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in regard to the speedy-trial violation. Petitioner fails to identify any facts that were not contained within the record in support of these claims, and, in fact, petitioner points directly to the trial record tosupport his allegations that the prosecution's statements were false.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (per curiam); Whitham v. State, 2011 Ark. 28 (per curiam); Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Coley v. State, 2011 Ark. 540 (per curiam). The remedy 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. Hogue, 2011 Ark. 496. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...This applies even to issues of trial error of constitutional dimension that could have been raised in the trial court. Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam). Petitioner also contends that he has newly discovered evidence that warrants issua......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...This applies even to issues of trial error of constitutional dimension that could have been raised in the trial court. Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam). By petitioner admissions, all the assertions made by him concerning the three witn......
-
McDaniels v. State, CACR 11-350
...assistance of counsel are outside the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. Rodriguez v. State, 2012 Ark. 393 (per curiam); Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam); Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. 542 (per curiam); Benton v. State, 2011 Ark. 211 (p......
-
Winbush v. State
...This applies even to issues of trial error of constitutional dimension that could have been raised in the trial court. Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin, 2012 Ark. 44. As petitioner has not stated a ground to issue a writ of error coram nobis, thepetition is denied. Petit......