[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, FIRST DIVISION, NO. 60CR-11-3766]
Talley, Jr., pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Asst Atty Gen., for
R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Pending before this court is a pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis filed by petitioner Darryl Talley,
Jr. In his petition, Talley alleges that exculpatory
testimony of two witnesses was suppressed in violation of
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10
L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Because Talley has failed to state
sufficient facts to establish a Brady violation, we
deny the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
was convicted of robbery, theft of property, and employment
of a firearm to commit aggravated robbery, for which he
received an aggregate sentence of 168 months imprisonment.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and
remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing the
trial court to correct a clerical error in the sentencing
order that Talley had been convicted of Class B felony theft
rather than Class C felony theft. Talley v. State,
2017 Ark.App. 550, 533 S.W.3d 95.
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 had it 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.
court will grant permission to proceed with a petition for
the writ only when it appears that, looking to the
reasonableness of the allegations in the petition and the
probability of the truth of those allegations, 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