[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND PRO SE
MOTIONS TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR STATUS AND DETERMINATION
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION, NO.
Charles E. Jones, pro se petitioner.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Asst Atty
Gen., for respondent.
R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Petitioner Charles Edward Jones has filed a petition to
reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a
petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he alleges
that there was exculpatory information that was unknown and
not addressed at trial. Jones subsequently filed a motion
"to show cause for coram nobis" in which he asserts
additional bases for the writ. Jones also filed a motion for
status and determination in which he requested that he be
given either prompt attention to the matter or a status
report. Because Jones provides no meritorious basis for
issuance of the writ, we deny the petition. The motion to
show cause is treated as a motion to supplement the petition
to reinvest jurisdiction and denied. The motion for status is
convicted Jones of four counts of rape, and he was sentenced
to four consecutive terms of 480 months imprisonment. His
convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Arkansas Court
of Appeals. Jones v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 324, 2010
this court is Joness petition in which he requests
permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for
a writ of error coram nobis to challenge the judgment in that
case. The 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
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