Kevin D. JONES, Appellant
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
Page 154
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 155
PRO SE
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION,
AND MOTION TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS [NO. 60CR-15-581], HONORABLE
WENDELL GRIFFEN, JUDGE
Kevin
D. Jones, pro se appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for
appellee.
OPINION
SHAWN
A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Kevin
D. Jones appeals the denial of his pro se petition for writ
of error coram nobis or to vacate his conviction. In 2016,
Jones pleaded nolo contendere to first degree battery and
unlawful possession of a firearm. He now contends that he was
coerced into entering the plea. In addition to denying his
petition, Jones claims the circuit court failed to address
his claim of "withheld evidence" and should have
conducted an evidentiary hearing. We find no error and
affirm. His subsequent motion to unseal documents is
accordingly moot.
We
review the circuit court’s denial of a petition for writ of
error coram nobis for abuse of discretion. See
Osburn v. State, 2018 Ark. 341, at 2, 560 S.W.3d
774, 776. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts
arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id. There is no abuse
of discretion in the denial of coram nobis relief when the
claims in the petition were groundless. Id.
A writ
of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy.
See Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. 227, at 2,
549 S.W.3d 356, 358. Proceedings for the writ 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 if it had 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
demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the
record. Id.
The
writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to
achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental
nature. See Dednam v. State, 2019 Ark. 8,
at 3, 564 S.W.3d 259, 261. A writ of error coram nobis is
available to address certain errors 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.
Jones
contends that his plea was coerced because his attorney did
not render effective assistance of counsel during the plea
hearing. As a threshold matter,
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not cognizable
in coram nobis proceedings. SeeState v.
Tejeda-Acosta,2013 Ark. 217, at 8, 427 S.W.3d 673, 678.
We ...