Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

No. CR-16-475

DENNIS RAY MATTHEWS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 60CR-81-1233]

HONORABLE WENDELL 

GRIFFEN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

 In 1981, appellant Dennis Ray Matthews entered a plea of guilty to capital felony 

murder for which the underlying felony was aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life 

imprisonment without parole. The judgment was entered on January 5, 1982. On June 4, 

2016, Matthews filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The 

trial court declined to issue the writ, and Matthews brings this appeal. 

The standard of review of an order entered by the trial court on a petition for writ 

of error coram nobis is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying 

the writ. Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts 

arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. The trial court’s 

findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error 

coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly 

against the preponderance of the evidence. Newman, 2014 Ark. 7. There is no abuse of 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

2

discretion in the denial of error-coram-nobis relief when the claims in the petition were 

groundless. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852.

A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 

Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). 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 v. State, 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 771. 

The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to 

address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. 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. These categories, however, are not absolute and 

may be expanded when there is a showing of a procedural gap whereby a petitioner in a 

particular case would be denied due process of law if a coram-nobis proceeding were not 

allowed to fill the void. See Strawhacker v. State, 2016 Ark. 348, ___ S.W.3d ___. Errorcoram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of 

conviction is valid. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d 852, 854.

In his petition, Matthews stated the following two grounds for issuance of the writ: 

(1) he was mentally incompetent and awaiting a mental evaluation at the time he was 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

3

“forced” to enter his plea and was incapable of understanding the ramifications of a guilty 

plea; (2) he was coerced and threatened into changing his plea of not guilty by reason of 

mental disease to a plea of guilty. Matthews did not support the claims in his petition with 

any facts or provide any substantiation or elucidation of the allegations, and he offered no 

explanation of how the claims would warrant issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. In 

his brief-in-chief and his reply brief, Matthews expands on his bare claims and provides 

information that was not contained in the petition that the trial court ruled on. 

First, this court will not consider the new material contained in the briefs. We do 

not address new arguments raised for the first time on appeal or consider factual 

substantiation added to bolster the allegations made below. Thornton v. State, 2014 Ark. 113

(per curiam). When reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a coram-nobis petition on appeal, 

the appellant is limited to the scope and nature of the arguments that he or she made below 

that were considered by the trial court in rendering its ruling. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. 

526, at 3, 452 S.W.3d 87, 89, reh’g denied (Feb. 12, 2015). Also, to the extent that Matthews 

did not argue in his brief a claim made below, allegations raised in the trial court, but not 

argued on appeal, are considered abandoned. See Johnson, 2014 Ark. 526, 452 S.W.3d 87; 

see also Schrader v. State, 2014 Ark. 379, 441 S.W.3d 1 (per curiam).

Matthews appended to his coram-nobis petition an affidavit in which he argued that 

his attorney when he entered his plea in 1981 did not competently represent him. The trial 

court ruled that the allegations raised in the coram-nobis petition, while couched as claims 

for issuance of the writ, were actually allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and thus 

did not state a ground for the writ. We agree. This court has held that claims of ineffective 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

4

assistance of counsel are not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding. State v. Tejeda-Acosta, 

2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673. Such claims are properly brought pursuant to Arkansas 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. A petition for writ of error coram nobis is not a substitute 

for proceeding under Rule 37.1. Id. This holds true even when the deadline for filing 

Rule 37 relief has passed, as fundamental fairness and due process do not require an 

unlimited opportunity to proceed under Rule 37.1. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, at 6, 431 S.W.3d 

852, 856.

Next, the claims raised by Matthews in his petition asserting that he was not mentally 

competent when he entered his plea in 1981 were devoid of facts to substantiate the claims. 

The application for coram-nobis relief must make a full disclosure of specific facts relied on 

as the basis for the writ. Markus v. State, 2015 Ark. 228, at 4, 463 S.W.3d 675, 677 (per 

curiam); see also Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.3d 818. Because Matthews failed 

to assert facts in support of the allegations contained in the coram-nobis petition that 

established a ground for the writ, he did not meet his burden of showing that the trial court 

should issue the writ. Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. 83, 456 S.W.3d 371 (per curiam).

With respect to Matthews’s conclusory statement that he was “coerced and 

threatened” into pleading guilty, coercion is, as stated, one of the grounds on which the 

writ may issue, but there was no claim that Matthews’s plea was the result of fear, duress, or 

threats of mob violence as previously recognized by this court as grounds for a finding of 

coercion. Oliver v. State, 2016 Ark. 78, 483 S.W.3d 298 (per curiam). His allegations did 

not rise to the level of coercion, which we have held is a compulsion of a free agent by 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

5

physical, moral, or economic force or threat of physical force. See White v. State, 2015 Ark. 

151, at 5, 460 S.W.3d 285, 288.

Moreover, there was no fact in Matthews’s petition with respect to either his claims 

of coercion or his impaired mental state that he could not have brought out at the time of 

trial to demonstrate that he was coerced into pleading guilty or that he was not sane. 

Matthews failed to show that there existed some fact—coercion or incompetence at the 

time of the guilty plea—that would have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been 

known to the trial court and that, through no negligence or fault of his, was not brought 

forward before rendition of judgment. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374. 

By entering a plea, Matthews elected to abandon the competency issue, and he waived any 

claim that he was not guilty of the charges. Oliver, 2016 Ark. 78, at 4, 483 S.W.3d 298, 

301; see also Beverage v. State, 2015 Ark. 112, at 7, 458 S.W.3d 243, 248.

Finally, Matthews filed his coram-nobis petition thirty-five years after he had entered 

his plea of guilty. Although there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram 

nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for relief. Newman, 2009 Ark. 

539, 354 S.W.3d 61. Due diligence requires that the defendant be unaware of the fact at 

the time of the trial, that the defendant could not have, in the exercise of due diligence, 

presented the fact at trial, and that the defendant, after discovering the fact, did not delay 

bringing the petition. Id. In the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be 

denied, and the burden is on the petitioner to establish that he or she acted with due 

diligence. Grant v. State, 2016 Ark. 82, at 6, 484 S.W.3d 272, 277 (per curiam). Even 

though an assertion of mental incompetence at the time of trial is a recognized ground for 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 447

6

the writ, merely referring to incompetence as a ground for the writ without stating facts to 

support the claim does not constitute a showing that the petitioner has met the burden of 

proceeding with diligence. Matthews’s conclusory statements did not establish that he was 

diligent in filing his petition.

Because Matthews’s petition for writ of error coram nobis did not state a ground to 

warrant issuance of the writ and he was not diligent in bringing the petition, the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. See White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 

285. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Affirmed.

Dennis Ray Matthews, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee