[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
SECOND PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT
TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; MOTION
SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE; MOTION FOR THE COURT TO
PROVIDE COPIES MARKED FILED OF PETITION, EXHIBITS, MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE, AND ANY AND ALL RESPONSES FROM THE
RESPONDENT SHOULD THE COURT DENY THE PETITION; MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH
DIVISION, NO. 60CR-94-2146]
DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Pending before this court is a pro se second petition filed
by petitioner Lawrence Edward Martin to reinvest jurisdiction
in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error
coram nobis. The State has filed a response to Martins
petition, and Martin subsequently filed a pending motion
seeking leave to file a response to the States response.
Also pending is Martins motion for file-marked copies at
public expense of his petition, exhibits attached to the
petition, his motion for leave to respond, and "any and
all responses from the respondent should the court denie
[sic] the petition." Finally, Martin has filed a motion
for appointment of counsel.
was convicted of the capital murder of his mother that was
committed in the course of an aggravated robbery. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed the conviction
and sentence. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944
S.W.2d 512 (1997). Because the proposed claims raised by
Martin in his second petition are based on allegations that
are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings, we deny his
petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court so that
he may file a petition for error coram nobis relief, which
renders his motion seeking leave to file a response and his
motion for appointment of counsel moot. We deny his motion
for copies at public expense of the documents filed in this
petition for leave to proceed in the trial court 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, 425 S.W.3d 771. A writ of error
coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. Id.
Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption
that the judgment of conviction is valid. Id. ;
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374.
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. Roberts, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. The
petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental
error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id.
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
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. ;
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
first coram nobis petition, Martin raised three grounds for
relief: that his arrest was a pretext for an illegal search;
that the trial court failed to order a mental evaluation; and
that new evidence showed that additional charges had been
dismissed. See Martin v. State, 2012 Ark.
44 (per curiam). Martins first petition was denied because
it failed to state a claim that was extrinsic to the record
or that was cognizable in coram nobis proceedings.
Id. The same is true of this second petition.
second petition, Martin has raised multiple overlapping and
conclusory grounds for relief that include allegations of a
prejudicial jury-selection process; misleading and erroneous
jury instructions; an unlawful arrest; prosecutorial
misconduct; violation of his right to due process;
ineffective assistance of counsel; and failure by this court
to address adverse rulings on direct appeal in compliance
with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) (1995).
court will grant permission to proceed with a petition for
the writ only when it appears, looking to the reasonableness
of the allegations in the proposed petition and the existence
of the probability of the truth of those allegations, that
the proposed attack on the judgment is meritorious. Jones
v. State,2017 Ark. 334, 531 S.W.3d 384. This court is
not required to accept at face value the allegations in the
petition. Id. The burden is on the petitioner in the
application for coram nobis relief to make a full disclosure
of specific facts relied upon and not to merely state
conclusions as to the nature of such facts. Rayford v.
State,2018 Ark. 183, 546 S.W.3d 475. Furthermore,
errors that occurred at trial that could have been addressed
at trial are not ...