[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION, NO. 60CR-15-469]
Lamont Jones, pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Asst Atty Gen.,
F. WYNNE, Associate Justice
Petitioner Tyrun Lamont Jones was found guilty by a jury of
second-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a
firearm for which he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence
of 300 months imprisonment with a firearm enhancement of 180
months imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Jones v. State, 2017 Ark.App. 286, 524 S.W.3d 1.
Jones now brings this pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis in which he contends that the trial
judge was biased and that newly discovered evidence indicates
he is actually innocent. Because we find that Joness claims
do not establish a ground for the writ, the petition is
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. 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. 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 v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d
771. We are not required to accept the
allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis at
face value. Jackson v. State, 2017 Ark. 195, 520
S.W.3d 242. 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. A coram nobis
action does not provide the petitioner with a means to retry
his or her case. Martinez-Marmol v. State, 2018 Ark.
145, 544 S.W.3d 49.
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. Howard v.
State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
first contends that the trial judge was biased because
"by his own admission [he met] with the victims
father[,] Michael Booker[,] ... (a lawyer) in his chambers
... [and] stated that Mr. Booker came from his part of the
country. " Jones fails to demonstrate that he is
entitled to coram nobis relief. While a claim of judicial
bias may be recognized as a ground for relief in coram nobis
proceedings, the petitioner must demonstrate actual bias and
that the judges bias manifested in a manner that was hidden
and could not have been challenged at the time of trial.
See Martinez-Marmol, 2018 Ark. 145, 544
S.W.3d 49; see also Brown v. State, 2012
Ark. 399, 424 S.W.3d 288. Jones makes no claim that any
rulings were adverse and merely contends that the judge
should have recused or disqualified himself under Rule 2.11
of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct because he spoke
with the victims father, an attorney. Joness claim is not
extrinsic to the record and does not demonstrate any actual
bias. On the record, it was clear that the judge spoke with
the victims father, who was not a trial witness, and that
counsel for Jones indicated that they were familiar with the
victims father and that the victims parents could remain in
the courtroom during the trial. Joness claim here is nothing
more than a claim of trial court error, which is not
cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. Carner v.
State, 2018 Ark. 20, 535 S.W.3d 634. Assertions 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
his second claim, Jones contends that he is actually innocent
based on newly discovered evidence. Specifically, Jones
contends that he has affidavits that clarify that "Lil
O" or "Little O," who is referenced throughout
the investigation, and "Little Q," who was
referenced in a police report, are not the same person, which
proves his innocence. Here, Joness allegation fails to
state a claim for coram nobis relief. Joness claim of ...