[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 43CR-97-9],
HONORABLE JASON ASHLEY PARKER, JUDGE
Stocks, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Vada Berger, Sr. Asst Atty Gen.,
K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Carlton Stocks appeals the circuit courts denial of his pro
se petition for a writ of error coram nobis and audita
querela. Stocks, who entered a guilty plea in
1997 to three counts of capital murder in the deaths of his
family members, raises multiple grounds for relief. Because
Stocks has not established grounds for issuance of the writ,
Nature of the Writ
review a circuit courts denial of a petition for writ of
error coram nobis for abuse of discretion. Newman v.
State, 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789. A court abuses its
discretion when it acts arbitrarily or groundlessly.
Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. A
writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy.
State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 2000.
The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment
when there existed some fact that would have prevented its
rendition if it had been known to the circuit court and that,
through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not
brought forward before judgment. Newman v. State,
2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. It is the petitioners burden
to demonstrate a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the
record. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d
771. The trial court is not required to hold a hearing on a
clearly non-meritorious coram nobis petition. Griffin v.
State, 2018 Ark. 10, 535 S.W.3d 261.
writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to
achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental
nature. Dednam v. State, 2019 Ark. 8, 564 S.W.3d
259. A writ of error coram nobis is available to address the
following errors: (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. Error coram nobis
proceedings are attended by a "strong presumption"
that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson,
2014 Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d at 854.