Darrell F. Watson v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CACR 04­1398  Opinion Delivered January 24, 2008  DARRELL F. WATSON  Petitioner  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Petitioner  PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST  JURISDICTION IN TRIAL COURT TO  CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT  OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT  COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR  2002­4270]  PETITION DENIED.  PER CURIAM  Petitioner Darrell Watson was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property after  a trial to the bench and received an aggregate sentence of 264 months’ imprisonment.  The Arkansas  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed.  Watson  v.  State,  CACR  04­1398  (Ark.  App.  Aug.  31,  2005).  Subsequently, petitioner sought relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  The trial court denied the  petition, and we affirmed.  Watson v. State, CR 06­148 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2006) (per curiam).  Now  before  us  is  petitioner’s  pro  se  petition  to  reinvest  jurisdiction  in  the  trial  court  to  1  consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.  The petition to reinvest jurisdiction 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) (per curiam). 1  For clerical purposes, the instant pleading was assigned the same docket number as the  direct appeal of the judgment.  A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than  its approval.  State v. Larimore, 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) (per curiam).  We have held that a writ of error  coram nobis was available to address certain errors 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 third­party  confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.  Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580,  986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per curiam).  Further, for the writ to issue following the affirmance of a conviction, the petitioner must  show a fundamental error of fact  extrinsic to  the record.  Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938  S.W.2d 818 (1997).  A writ of error coram nobis 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.  Echols v. State,  360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005); Brown v. State, 330 Ark. 627, 955 S.W.2d 901 (1997).  Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is  valid.  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)).  Here, petitioner alleges that a witness’s prior statement “went unnoticed” during the criminal  trial and that he discovered this statement through due diligence.  He maintains that the statement  contained exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated him. Nevertheless, petitioner’s pleading  to this court is devoid of any information that would indicate the witness to which he is referring, the  content of the statement at issue, and how the statement would be exculpatory in light of the trial ­2­  testimony.  Without at least this basic information, it cannot be determined whether the statement was  one  that  was  extrinsic  to  the  record,  was  not  addressed,  or  could  not  have  been  addressed  at  petitioner’s trial because it  was somehow hidden or unknown.  Echols, supra; Larimore, supra.  Petitioner did not allege that this statement was one withheld by the prosecutor nor did he present  facts in support of such an allegation.  In a petition for writ of error coram nobis, it is the petitioner’s burden to show that the writ  is warranted.  Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004).  Here, petitioner has failed to  make a showing that  the allegations  contained in his petition are meritorious or are grounds for  reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.  As no  substantive basis exists for granting the petition, we need not reach the issue of whether petitioner  exercised due diligence in filing this petition.  Petition denied. ­3­ 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.