Eddie L. PUGH, Appellant
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
APPEAL FROM THE POINSETT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
56CR-16-273], HONORABLE DAN RITCHEY, JUDGE
L. Pugh, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee.
A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Appellant Eddie L. Pugh brings this appeal from the denial
and dismissal by the circuit court of his pro se petition for
writ of error coram nobis and his pro se motion to correct a
mistake in the sentencing order. In his brief, Pugh refers to
his claim that there was a mistake in the sentencing order,
but he does not include the motion in the addendum to his
brief. Accordingly, we address this appeal solely as an
appeal from the decision of the circuit court to decline to
issue the writ. As Pugh has failed to demonstrate that the
circuit court abused its discretion in declining to issue the
writ, the order is affirmed.
entered a plea of guilty in 2016 to second-degree murder and
was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. Imposition of an
additional sentence of 120 months imprisonment was
suspended. In 2018, Pugh filed in the trial court both the
motion to correct the sentencing order and the coram nobis
petition. The motion and petition were denied and dismissed
in one order entered September 14, 2018. As stated, Pugh
contends on appeal that the trial court was wrong not to
issue the writ.
Standard of Review
standard of review of an order entered by the trial court on
a petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial
court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ.
Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789. An
abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts arbitrarily or
groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431
S.W.3d 852. There is no abuse of discretion in the denial of
error coram nobis relief when the claims in the petition were
groundless. Osburn v. State, 2018 Ark. 341, 560
Nature of the 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 rendered while there existed some fact that would
have prevented its ...