Arvin B. Stanley v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

ARVIN B. STANLEY

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 01-704

PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI and MOTION TO AMEND PETITION [CIRCUIT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, NO. CR 97-23, HON. ROBERT McCORKINDALE, JUDGE]

PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO AMEND PETITION MOOT

In 1997, Arvin B. Stanley pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, theft of property, commercial burglary, and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 180 months' imprisonment. In 2000, Stanley filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis which was denied. Now before us is petitioner Stanley's petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the denial of the coram nobis action. 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). Petitioner also seeks leave to file an amended petition.

A writ of error coram nobis is an exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achievejustice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal conviction being challenged, Larimore, supra, citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).

The partial record lodged by petitioner contains only the first page of the petition for writ of error coram nobis in which petitioner contends in conclusory fashion that the petition is meritorious and brought in good faith, that petitioner is indigent, and that a coram nobis proceeding is the proper avenue to present the claims raised in the petition. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a record that demonstrates that a cognizable claim for relief was raised in the petition before the trial court. See Miller v. State, 328 Ark. 121, 942 S.W.2d 825 (1997). As petitioner has failed to produce that record, the petition for writ of certiorari must be denied. The motion to amend the petition is moot.

Petition denied; motion to amend petition moot.