Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

No. CR

- 0 0

- 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 [ CR ITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO S

. 1 8 CR

- 97

- 85, 18 CR

- 97

- 86, 18 CR

- 97

- 88 ]

PETITION D ENIED

.

RHONDA K. WOOD , Associate Justice

P etitioner Brian Leonard Faulkens brings this petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis

. Faulkens all eges the following: the State violat ed his c onstitution al rights by amending the information three times; the State violated Ark ansas Code Ann otated section 16

- 95

- 101 (1987) , the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ; the State violat ed Arkansas Code Annotated section 16

- 701

- 706 (1987), which governs the process by which the defendant charged with a criminal offense is arraig n ed ; and he was illegally arrested on a pretext. Because n one of Faulkens ’s claims

states a basis for the writ, the petition is denied.Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

2 T he petition for leave to proceed in the trial c ourt is necessary because the judgment
in Faulkens’s case was affirmed, 1 and 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. I d

. 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

- par ty 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 proceeding s against him. C oram nobis proceeding s do not provide a n avenue to challeng e 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

- 0 0

- 6 9 8 (Ark. App. Feb. 14, 2001) (unpublished).Cite as 2017 Ark. 291

3 lacked j urisdiction , 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 p roceeding

. 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.