Michael Catlett v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

May 20, 2004

MICHAEL CATLETT

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 95-10

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 93-2636]

PETITION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 1993, Michael Catlett was charged with capital murder. At trial, he contended that because of his mental illness he was incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit the offense. He further asserted the affirmative defense that he lacked the ability to control his conduct to the extent that he should not be held accountable for it. Catlett was found guilty by the jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Catlett v. State, 321 Ark. 1, 900 S.W.2d 523 (1995).

Catlett subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 challenging the judgment. The petition was denied, and the order was affirmed. Catlett v. State, 331 Ark. 270, 962 S.W.2d 313 (1998).

Catlett now asks that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 -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 Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001).

-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 a ground sufficient to warrant granting leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.

As his sole ground for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis, petitioner contends that the State violated Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305 (Repl. 1993) in that it did not end its prosecution of him immediately upon his assertion that his defense would be based on a claim of mental disease or defect. He contends that the State continued to file motions and instigate hearings which required his presence. While the statute requires the proceeding be continued once the defendant gives notice of his or her intention of relying on a defense of mental disease or defect, petitioner does not explain specifically what proceedings were pursued by the State or what prejudice he suffered.

Moreover, the defense clearly would have been aware at the time of any infraction by the State of the statute and could have raised a contemporaneous objection. An error coram nobis proceeding is not a means to raise issues which could have been settled in the trial court. The remedy is 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)).

Petition denied.

1 For clerical purposes, the instant petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis was assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal of the judgment.