After reviewing the instant petition, we do not find that petitioner Newton has stated any ground sufficient for this court to grant leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to error coram nobis relief on the ground that the State withheld evidence from the defense at trial. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial after he was convicted in which he argued that the State had improperly withheld exculpatory evidence in the testimony of Peretti and Acklin. On appeal, the court of appeals found no abuse of discretion on the trial court's part in denying the motion and declined to reverse the judgment. Six months after he was convicted, petitioner filed in the trial court a motion to reconsider the motion for new trial based on the allegation that newly discovered evidence revealed Acklin's testimony to have been inaccurate and misleading and that the Pine Bluff Police Department had not disclosed its evidence log concerning the bumper.
Petitioner reasserts in the instant petition the claims raised in the motion for reconsideration.
There is a distinction between fundamental error and newly discovered evidence. Before a writ of error coram nobis may issue it must appear that the facts as alleged as grounds for its issuance are such that 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, not that the newly discovered evidence might have produced a different result had it been known to judge and jury. The allegations raised by petitioner as newly discovered exculpatory evidence are not of such fundamental nature that it can be said that there is a reasonable probability that the judgment would not have been rendered had the information been brought out at trial, especially in view of the evidence that petitioner told one person he had struck and run over a person, that following the time of the accident he had an injury to his arm for which he gave differing explanations, and that he lied to police concerning whether his truck had ever had front-end damage. Petitioner has not demonstrated that there was some suppression by the State of exculpatory evidence that could not have been known to the petitioner during thetrial or that a fundamental error extrinsic to the record occurred. For clerical purposes, the petition was filed under the docket number assigned to the direct appeal of the judgment in the court of appeals.