John Henry Williams v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

OCTOBER 26, 2000

JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 90-39

PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS and MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 88-1592]

PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION MOOT

In 1989, John Henry Williams was found guilty of capital murder and battery in the first degree and sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Williams v. State, 303 Ark. 193, 794 S.W.2d 618 (1990).

Ten years after the judgment was affirmed, Williams filed a petition asking 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). Williams now seeks to withdraw the petition without prejudice on the ground that the law library where he is incarcerated is inadequate for him to pursue the action further. As we find no ground stated in the petition on which the writ could be issued, we deny the petition anddeclare the motion to withdraw it to be moot.

··²TopOfPage²·· ··²TopOfPage²··-A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than 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.

In the instant matter, petitioner contends only that he was denied the opportunity to file a petition for postconviction relief after the judgment was affirmed. Clearly, the allegation is not within the purview of a error coram nobis proceeding.

Petition denied; motion to withdraw petition moot.