Larry A. Vaseur v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 21, 2001

LARRY A. VASEUR

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 01-601

MOTION TO PROCEED WITH BELATED PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI [CIRCUIT COURT OF ARKANSAS COUNTY, NORTHERN DISTRICT, NO. CR 83-178, CR 83-179, HON. RUSSELL ROGERS, JUDGE

MOTION DENIED

On November 14, 1983, Larry A. Vaseur pleaded guilty to capital murder, burglary, and misdemeanor theft of property. Consecutive sentences of life and twenty years' imprisonment were imposed with a one-year sentence for misdemeanor theft being merged into the consecutive sentences. As Vaseur had pleaded guilty, there was no appeal taken to this court. Vaseur subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 in the trial court which was denied in 1984. Sixteen years later in 2000, Vaseur filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the writ should be issued to vacate the judgment entered in 1983 because he did not plead guilty to each of the three charges. The trial court denied the petition, and Vaseur appealed to this court rather than filing a petition for writ of certiorari here as is the correct means to seek review of the denial of a coram nobis relief. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997), citing Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571,670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Now before us is petitioner Vaseur's motion for leave to proceed with a belated petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis.

The motion is denied. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 ( 2000). Literally, coram nobis means our court, in our presence, before us. Penn v. State, supra. 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. Due diligence is required in making application for relief. Penn v. State, supra; Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 646, 519 S.W.2d 740, 741 (1975).

In the instant matter, petitioner could have raised the issue of whether he pleaded guiltyto each of the three counts at the time he entered the pleas. Moreover, petitioner waited approximately seventeen years to file the petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. As stated, the issue raised in the petition was one which would have been evident at the plea hearing; thus, petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the coram nobis remedy.

Motion denied.