Case Title: Harold W. Pate v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR00-484

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2000-09-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 HAROLD W. PATE Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 00-484 PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER COUNTY, CR 96-433-3] PETITION DENIED In 1997, Harold Pate was found guilty of two counts of attempted capital murder and sentenced to an aggregate term of 100 years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Pate v. State, CACR 97-1479 (September 16, 1998). On April 25, 2000, Pate filed the instant petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. It is necessary that a petitioner receive permission from this court because a circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). ··²TopOfPage²····²TopOfPage²··A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark.___, ___S.W.3d___(May 25, 2000). Literally, coram nobis means our court, in our presence, before us. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). The essence of the writ of error coram nobis is that it is addressed to the very court whichrenders the judgment where injustice is alleged to have been done, rather than to an appellate or other court. Black's Law Dictionary 337 (6th ed. 1990). The 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). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors of the most fundamental nature that are found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Pitts, supra. The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which 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 judgment. Larimore, supra. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid, and the court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied. Moreover, the mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. Pitts, supra. The standard for granting coram nobis relief is whether there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed at trial. Larimore, supra. In brief, we must determine whether judgment in this case was renderedwhile there existed facts which would have prevented its rendition if they had been known to the trial court. Petitioner claims that jurisdiction should be reinvested in the trial court to consider an error coram nobis petition on the ground that he was originally required to appear in court on a charge of two counts of first degree battery, but there was never a felony information filed charging him with the batteries. He concedes that there was a felony information charging him with two counts of attempted capital murder and that he was ultimately convicted of those offenses. He argues that there was no evidence to support the charges of attempted capital murder and that the only way the State was able to upgrade the charges from battery to attempted murder was to withhold evidence. Petitioner does not specify what evidence was withheld and thus has failed absolutely to show that there was material evidence concealed by the State. We find that petitioner has not demonstrated that there is any cause to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for error coram nobis. Clearly, all of the claims raised, except for the entirely conclusory allegation that the State withheld evidence, could have been raised at trial. Petition denied.