Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

No. CR-00-698

BRIAN LEONARD FAULKENS

PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered October 26, 2017

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST 

JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT 

TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS 

[CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT 

COURT, NOS. 18CR-97-85, 18CR-97-

86, 18CR-97-88]

PETITION DENIED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

 Petitioner Brian Leonard Faulkens brings this petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the 

trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Faulkens alleges the 

following: the State violated his constitutional rights by amending the information three 

times; the State violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-95-101 (1987), the Interstate 

Agreement on Detainers; the State violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-701-706 

(1987), which governs the process by which the defendant charged with a criminal offense 

is arraigned; and he was illegally arrested on a pretext. Because none of Faulkens’s claims

states a basis for the writ, the petition is denied. 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

2

 The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the judgment 

in Faulkens’s case was affirmed,1and 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. 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. Id. The writ 

is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of 

the most fundamental nature. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771. 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. 

 Faulkens’s petition is based on allegations of error that occurred in the course of the 

criminal proceedings against him. Coram nobis proceedings do not provide an avenue to 

challenge rulings by the trial court. Such allegations, by their very nature, are outside the 

purview of a coram nobis proceeding because the facts at issue were known at the time of 

trial and could have been addressed at trial and on the record on direct appeal. See Green v. 

State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. Faulkens has not established that the trial court 

 

1 Faulkens v. State, CACR-00-698 (Ark. App. Feb. 14, 2001) (unpublished).
Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

3

lacked jurisdiction, that the judgment in his case was otherwise illegal, or that the claims are 

within the scope of one of the four categories recognized as a ground for relief in a coram 

nobis proceeding. The onus is on the petitioner to demonstrate a basis on which the writ 

should issue. See Jackson v. State, 2017 Ark. 195, 520 S.W.3d. 242. Faulkens has not met 

that burden.

 Petition denied.