Cardell Hunes v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 1, 2001

CARDELL HUNES

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 81-74

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI, NO. CR 80-2085]

PETITION DENIED

In 1981, Cardell Hunes was found guilty by a jury of rape, aggravated robbery, and two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to an aggregate term of 170 years' imprisonment. We affirmed. Hunes v. State, 274 Ark. 268, 623 S.W.2d 835 (1981). Hunes subsequently challenged the judgment in this court in 1988 pursuant to our postconviction rule, Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied. Hunes v. State, CR 81-74 (November 21, 1988).

In 1998, Hunes filed a petition for postconviction relief in the trial court which he styled a "writ of error." In the petition, Hunes raised the identical ground he raised in this court on direct appeal, i.e. that his confession was involuntary by virtue of his age, drug use, lack of eduction, fatigue, absence of counsel, and lack of memory. Noting that the issue had been decided adversely to Hunes at trial and on appeal and was thus not available as a ground for postconviction relief, the trial court denied the petition. On appeal from the order, we concludedthat appellant Hunes could not prevail and dismissed the appeal. Hunes v. State, CR 99-82 (October 21, 1999). Hunes now seeks to have 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. ··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.397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). 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, citing Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. After reviewing the instant petition, we do not find that petitioner has stated good cause to grant leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.

The sole ground for the writ asserted by petitioner Hunes is that his confession which was introduced into evidence at trial was inadmissible. As indicated above, this issue was raised at trial and on appeal and decided adversely to petitioner. A coram nobis proceeding is not a means to revisit an issue that has been settled.

Petition denied.