PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR-02-261
DAN KEMP, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Adrian Louis Carner, who was convicted in 2003 of
first-degree murder, brings this pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis. He contends that (1) he was
convicted on "nothing solid" and the State failed
to prove the elements of the offense; (2) there were errors
in his trial; (3) the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment without conducting a proper review on appeal and
made errors in its consideration of the appeal; (4) the
Supreme Court of Arkansas did not "look deeply"
into the evidence adduced at trial; (5) the State, in
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
referenced "the petitioner's prior when such was not
supposed to had been." Because Carner has not
demonstrated in the petition that the writ should issue, the
petition is denied.
petition is properly filed in this court. Carner's
conviction for first-degree murder was affirmed on appeal.
Carner v. State, CR-04-40 (Ark. App. Dec. 1, 2004)
(original docket no. CACR 04-40). The trial court cannot
entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a
judgment has been affirmed on appeal unless this court grants
permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354
S.W.3d 61. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily
rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17
S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a
strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid.
Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524;
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374;
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. 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, 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, 2013
Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.
writ is allowed under compelling circumstances to achieve
justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature.
Id. 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. Howard v.
State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. A court is not
required to accept the allegations in a petition for writ of
error coram nobis at face value. Green, 2016 Ark.
386, 502 S.W.3d 524.
Sufficiency of the Evidence to Sustain the Judgment
coram nobis petition is largely made up of claims that the
evidence adduced at his trial was insufficient to prove that
he was guilty of first-degree murder. Challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence constitute a direct attack on the
judgment and are not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.
Grady v. State, 2017 Ark. 245, 525 S.W.3d 1.
Allegations that the evidence presented at trial was not
sufficient to support a finding of the defendant's guilt
are issues to be addressed at trial, and, when appropriate,
on the record on direct appeal. Jackson v. State,
2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d 242.
of trial error that were raised at trial, or which could have
been raised at trial, are not within the purview of a coram
nobis proceeding. Howard, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d
38. Such claims are not within the scope of the limited
grounds on which the writ may issue, and a coram nobis action
does not provide the petitioner with a means to retry his or
Review of Judgment by the Appellate Courts
nobis proceeding is not a means to challenge the review
conducted by the appellate court on direct appeal. Any
petition for rehearing or review that Carner desired to file
after the court of appeals had affirmed the judgment in his
case should have been filed in accordance with Arkansas
Supreme Court Rules 2-3 and 2-4 (2016) before the mandate of
the court of appeals was issued.
respect to Carner's contention that this court did not
delve into the evidence adduced at his trial, the only
proceeding in this court concerning Carner's conviction
was a motion for belated appeal that Carner filed here in
2005. The motion, which was filed pursuant to Rule 2(e) of
the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal (2016),
sought to proceed with a belated appeal from the trial
court's denial of his pro se petition pursuant to
Arkansas Rule Criminal Procedure 37.l (2004). The motion was
denied because Carner did not show good cause for his failure
to file a timely notice of appeal from the order. Carner
v. State, CR-05-1207 (Ark. Jan. 5, 2006) (unpublished
per curiam). See McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106,
146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). The sufficiency of the evidence to
support the judgment was not a factor in this court's
determination that Carner had not demonstrated good cause for
not timely filing a notice of appeal. Moreover, as with the
court of appeals' decision to affirm the judgment, this
court's decision on a motion for belated appeal cannot be
challenged in a coram nobis proceeding.