Counsel Amended December 12, 2014.
PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. 60CR-97-865. HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE.
Lee Charles Millsap, Pro se, appellant.
Attorney General, appellee.
PRO S.E. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
In 1998, appellant Lee Charles Millsap, who is also known as Lee Charles Millsap, Jr., entered a plea of guilty in the Pulaski County Circuit Court to multiple felony offenses. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole.
Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (1998). The petition was denied, and this court affirmed the order. Millsap v. State, CR-99-437, (Ark. Sept. 21, 2000) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2010, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. While appellant provided a lengthy account of the history of his case, appellant's only arguments for the writ were that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when he entered his plea of guilty and was also denied effective counsel in his Rule 37.1 proceeding because counsel did not arrange a psychiatric evaluation for him before the evidentiary hearing on the Rule 37.1 petition. The trial court treated the claims as allegations that appellant was insane at the time of trial and that his plea was coerced and denied appellant's coram-nobis petition. Appellant brings this appeal from the order.
Now before us is appellant's pro se motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and his petition for writ of certiorari in which he urges this court to find that the trial court erred in denying the coram-nobis petition. We need not address the merits of the motion or the petition because it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go 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 go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Edwards v. State, 2013 Ark. 517 (per curiam). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion and petition are moot.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy more known for its denial than its approval. Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 (per curiam). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Greene v. State, 2013 Ark. 251 (per curiam). 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 ...