Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–02–228,CR–02–228 |
| Citation | 2016 Ark. 201,491 S.W.3d 463 |
| Parties | James E. Smith, Petitioner v. State of Arkansas, Respondent |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petitioner James E. Smith was found guilty by a jury of two counts of rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend's daughters when they were both under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty years' imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Smith v. State, CR–02–228, 2012 WL 5304089 (Ark.App. Jan. 8, 2003) (unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 02–228). Smith subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Rule 37.1 in the trial court. The petition was denied, and we affirmed that order. Smith v. State, CR–05–294, 2012 WL 5304089 (Ark. Feb. 23, 2006) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2012, Smith filed in this court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied. Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. 403, 2012 WL 5304089 (per curiam). In 2014, petitioner filed a second petition seeking coram nobis relief, and it was dismissed as a successive petition. Smith v. State, 2014 Ark. 246, 456 S.W.3d 731 (per curiam). On March 15, 2015, Smith filed a third petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was also dismissed as successive. Smith v. State, 2015 Ark. 188, 461 S.W.3d 345 (per curiam). Smith's first three petitions challenged his convictions on the basis that the two victims had made inconsistent statements, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence, the prosecution fabricated evidence, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Now before this court is Smith's fourth pro se application to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Smith raises allegations not raised in the first three petitions, contending that his judgment of conviction was illegally rendered by a trial court that lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to an invalid arrest warrant and an insufficient information. Smith contends that the arrest warrant was invalid because it was not signed by the court and asserts that the criminal information was insufficient because it was not signed by the prosecutor or filed by the circuit clerk. Smith also argues that his counsel conspired with the prosecutor and the trial court to conceal these deficiencies because the trial court had been deprived of subject-matter jurisdiction. Smith has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated below, Smith's new allegations fail to raise claims that are cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding and are otherwise wholly without merit. Because the petition is without merit, Smith's motion for appointment of counsel is moot.
We first note that a petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court where the judgment was entered 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. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, at 11, 425 S.W.3d 771, 778. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy more known for its denial than its approval. Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, at 4, 403 S.W.3d 38, 42–43. 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 trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Id. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id. 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 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. Id.
Smith does not raise allegations sufficient to establish the existence of some fact extrinsic to the record because any defects in the arrest warrant or in the criminal information could have been discovered and raised in the trial court. Allen, 2014 Ark. 368, at 2, 440 S.W.3d at 330–31. Claims that a petitioner either could have known, or knew, at the time of trial do not provide grounds for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. Rodgers v. State , 2013 Ark. 294, at 3, 2013 WL 3322344 (per curiam); see also Howard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State, CR–08–1385
...arrest warrant, any defects in the arrest warrant could have been discovered and raised in the trial court. See Smith v. State , 2016 Ark. 201, at 3, 491 S.W.3d 463 (per curiam). Carter's claims regarding the warrant in his case do not establish the existence of some fact extrinsic to the r......
-
Carroll v. State, No. CR-19-547
...on the validity of the arrest of the accused, and a defective arrest does not, standing alone, vitiate a valid conviction. Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 201, 491 SW.3d 463. Moreover, Carroll makes no assertions that he was unaware of the alleged faults with the arrest warrant at the time of his......
-
Kellon v. Payne
...petitioner procedurally defaulted his jurisdictional claim by failing to raise it with Minnesota state courts); Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 201, 4, 491 S.W.3d 463, 466 (2016) (even if an information were insufficient, the jurisdiction of the trial court would not be implicated); Jones v. Stat......
-
Smith v. State
...his convictions were based on an invalid arrest warrant and an invalid information, and the petition was denied. Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 201, 491 S.W.3d 463 (per curiam). Smith's fifth petition was dismissed by this court without written opinion on August 3, 2017. Regarding his sixth peti......