Watson v. State, CR–16–611

• Decision Date: 23 February 2017
• Docket Number: No. CR–16–611,CR–16–611
• Citation: 510 S.W.3d 248
• Parties: Jason N. WATSON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

510 S.W.3d 248

Jason N. WATSON, Appellant
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR–16–611

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered February 23, 2017

PER CURIAM

In 2005, appellant Jason N. Watson entered a plea of guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On January 25, 2016, Watson filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The trial court held a hearing on the petition and denied it. Watson lodged an appeal from the order, and now before us is his motion to supplement the record with additional evidence that was not included in the coram nobis petition that the trial court considered.

510 S.W.3d 251

We dismiss the appeal as it is clear from the record that Watson could not prevail if the proceeding went forward. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be permitted to proceed when it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Millsap v. State , 2014 Ark. 493, at 2, 449 S.W.3d 701, 703, cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2054, 191 L.Ed.2d 960, reh'g denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 10, 192 L.Ed.2d 979 (2015). As the appeal is dismissed, the motion to supplement the record is moot.

The standard of review of an order entered by the trial court on a petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ. Newman v. State , 2014 Ark. 7. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State , 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. The trial court's findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Newman , 2014 Ark. 7. There is no abuse of discretion in the denial of error coral nobis relief when the claims in the petition were groundless. Nelson , 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852.

A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore , 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). 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. Newman v. State , 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 to address 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. Error coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson , 2014 Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d at 854.

In his petition, Watson raised the following grounds for issuance of the writ: (1) he was mentally incompetent when he entered his negotiated plea of guilty; (2) he was coerced and threatened into entering the plea of guilty; (3) he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to stand trial. Interspersed throughout the arguments were multiple assertions that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his guilt.

First, we have repeatedly held that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. Wallace v. State , 2016 Ark. 400, 503 S.W.3d 754 (per curiam). Moreover, by pleading guilty, Watson waived any claim that he was not guilty of the charges. Sherman v. State , 2014 Ark. 474, at 4, 448 S.W.3d 704, 709 (per curiam).

With respect to Watson's claim that a writ of error coram nobis should be issued on the ground that he did not voluntarily enter his plea, any claim that a guilty plea was not entered intelligently

510 S.W.3d 252

and voluntarily is properly brought pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2016), not in a petition for writ of...