PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND WRIT OF
AUDITA QUERELA PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH
DIVISION, NO. 60CR-01-1063.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Chris R. Warthen, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for respondent.
R. BAKER, Associate Justice. HART, J., dissents.
R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Roy Tolston brings this petition to reinvest jurisdiction in
the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram
nobis and audita querela in his criminal case. In the
petition, Tolston contends that the trial court erroneously
failed to apply the criminal code section that was in effect
at the time the crime was committed and that the prosecutor
violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct.
1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by withholding a medical report
pertaining to an examination of the victim. Because we find
that Tolston's claims do not establish a ground for the
writ, the petition is denied.
Nature of the Writ
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
Grounds for the Writ
writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to
achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental
nature. Pitts v. State,336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407
(1999). 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. The burden is on
the petitioner in the application for coram nobis relief to