SHERMAN D. NOBLE, PETITIONER
STATE OF ARKANSAS, RESPONDENT
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION WITH THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. CR-92-265-2.
Bill Luppen, for petitioner.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice. BAKER, GOODSON, and HART, JJ., dissent.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
Petitioner Sherman D. Noble filed in this court a petition to reinvest jurisdiction with the Jefferson County Circuit Court to hold a hearing on his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Noble argues that the circuit court erroneously dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Noble's petition.
A brief history of this case was set forth in Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006) (" Noble VIII " ), as follows. In 1992, Noble and two other men attempted to steal a BMW from a woman, Tresia Jester. As she drove off to avoid the robbery, she was shot and killed by Noble. Subsequently, on Sunday, October 25, 1992, Noble entered a plea of guilty to the crime of capital-felony murder to avoid the possibility of receiving a sentence of death. As a result of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On Monday, October 26, 1992, the circuit court entered its judgment and commitment order. On November 6, 1992, Noble's attorney, Mark Hampton, filed a notice of appeal. We dismissed Noble's direct appeal because he failed to reserve his right to appeal, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b), after entering a guilty plea. See Noble v. State, 314 Ark. 240, 862 S.W.2d 234 (1993) (" Noble I " ).
Since his direct appeal, Noble has been a party to numerous cases involving his guilty plea. See Noble v. State, 319 Ark. 407, 892 S.W.2d 477 (1995) (" Noble II " ) (holding Noble was not entitled to postconviction relief based on his contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal); Noble v. State, 326 Ark. 462, 932 S.W.2d 752 (1996) (per curiam) (" Noble III " ) (holding that the issuance of a writ of mandamus would be a vain and useless act, despite the fact that the circuit court erred in sua sponte dismissing the appeal, because the notice of appeal was untimely); Noble v. State, 326 Ark. 912, 934 S.W.2d 525 (1996) (per curiam) (" Noble IV " ) (allowing Noble to proceed with a belated appeal); Noble v. State, CR 96-1442, 1998 WL 313723 (Ark. June 11, 1998) (unpublished per curiam) (" Noble V " ) (holding that Noble was not entitled to file a second petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37 and, even if he was entitled to file, he could not have
prevailed); Noble v. Norris, 2005 WL 3008676 (Ark. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (" Noble VI " ) (ordering rebriefing); Noble v. Norris, 2005 WL 3436788 (Ark. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (" Noble VII " ) (granting Noble's motion for extension of time); Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006) (" Noble VIII " ) (affirming the circuit court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and rejecting Noble's argument that the circuit court was without subject-matter and statutory jurisdiction because of his guilty plea on a Sunday). Noble also was unsuccessful in seeking federal habeas relief. See Noble v. Norris, H-C-99-98 (E.D. Ark. 1999).
On August 1, 2013, Noble filed another petition for postconviction relief in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, and the State responded. On August 26, 2013, Noble asked the circuit court to consider his Rule 37 petition as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In support of his petition, Noble filed an affidavit of Mark Hampton, his defense attorney at trial, and his own affidavit. On October 18, 2013, the circuit court dismissed Noble's petition and ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because Noble had not provided any evidence ...