[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, TO RECALL THE MANDATE OR FOR OTHER RELIEF AND
AMENDMENT TO PETITION [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH
DIVISION, NO. 60CR-94-1368]
A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Petitioner Muta’ Ali Trujah Muhammad, also known as Anthony
Key, asks this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
court to consider his petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Alternatively, he seeks to recall this court’s mandate
affirming his conviction for capital murder and his sentence
of life imprisonment without parole. See Key v.
State, 325 Ark. 73, 923 S.W.2d 865 (1996). Muhammad’s
petition is premised on allegedly improper statements made by
the prosecution during trial. In an amendment to his
petition, he claims his sentence is illegal because he was
eighteen years old when he committed the crime. He sets out
no basis that would support issuance of the writ or a recall
of the mandate, and we therefore deny the petition and the
1995, a jury convicted Muhammad of capital murder for the
death of Lisa Williams. Muhammad has never disputed killing
Williams but maintains he did not act with premeditation.
Muhammad shot and killed Williams following an argument she
had with his sister. He fired five rounds from a sawed-off
12-gauge shotgun towards Williams’s trailer while she and her
husband were inside. The first round hit the trailer next
door and a second round hit the couple’s car. Three final
shots were fired into the trailer, including the fatal shot
that hit Williams while she was standing at a window. We
found that sufficient evidence supported Muhammad’s capital
murder conviction and affirmed the conviction on direct
of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy.
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Coram
nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that
the judgment of conviction is valid. Id. The
function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment
rendered while there existed some fact that would have
prevented its rendition had it been known to the trial court
and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant,
was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment.
Id. The petitioner has the burden of showing a
fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.
writ is available to address certain errors found in one of
four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced
guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or
a third-party confession to the crime during the time between
conviction and appeal. Id. Where the writ is sought
after the judgment has been affirmed on appeal, the circuit
court may entertain the petition only after this court grants
permission. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425
S.W.3d 771. This court will grant such permission only when
it appears the proposed attack on the judgment is
Muhammad’s petition is premised on allegedly improper
statements made by the prosecution during his 1995 trial. He
first contends the prosecution elicited inadmissible
testimony from him about a prior arrest. But, he failed to
object to that questioning during trial. Assertions of trial
error that could have been raised at trial are not within the
of a coram nobis proceeding. Martinez-Marmol v.
State, 2018 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Moreover,
Muhammad’s assertion that this court was obligated to correct
the alleged error during his direct appeal under Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-3(i) (2017) misconstrues the extent of
that review. Under Rule 4-3(i), we review the record for all
objections, motions, and requests that were decided adversely
to a defendant appealing a life sentence. This review
presupposes that a proper objection was made at trial so that
the trial court may first consider the alleged error.
Perry v. State, 2014 Ark. 535, 453 S.W.3d 650.
second proposed ground for the writ, Muhammad claims the
prosecution made false and misleading statements during
closing by stating that the victim had been shot while
looking out the window. His claim is premised on allegations
of insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence constitute a
direct attack on the judgment and are not cognizable in coram
nobis proceedings. Grady v. State, 2017 Ark. 245,
525 S.W.3d 1. In any event, we considered and rejected this
challenge during Muhammad’s direct appeal. See
Key, 325 Ark. 73, 923 S.W.2d 865.
amendment to his petition, Muhammad alleges his sentence of
life imprisonment without parole violates the Eighth
Amendment under Miller v. Alabama,567 U.S. 460, 132
S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). In Miller, the
United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life
sentences without parole for those under the age of eighteen
at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment.
Id. at 470, 132 S.Ct. 2455. He contends
Miller should be expanded to encompass offenders
who, like him, were eighteen years old at the time of their
crime. Coram nobis is not the proper remedy to challenge an
allegedly illegal sentence. SeeBunch ...