Title: Arthur Lee Threets, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM OCTOBER 26, 2000 ARTHUR LEE THREETS, JR. Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 87-59 PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF ARKANSAS COUNTY, NORTHERN DISTRICT, CR 86-57] PETITION DENIED In 1986, Arthur Lee Threets, Jr., was found guilty of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of one-hundred years' imprisonment. We affirmed. Threets v. State, 293 Ark. 205, 736 S.W.2d 282 (1987). Threets subsequently filed here a petition to proceed in the trial court with a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied. Threets v. State, CR 87-59 (March 7, 1988). Now thirteen years after the judgment was affirmed, Threets asks that this court reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case. The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the 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 denialthan 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 which renders 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. In the instant matter, petitioner asserts that he was convicted in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner does not explain the nature of the violation and offers nothing to demonstrate that the writ should issue. Petition denied.