Webb v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 497
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
5776 (affirmed Nov. 20, 1972)
Opinion Delivered
October 8, 2009
v.
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
73584]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PETITION DENIED.
DAVID WEBB
Petitioner
PER CURIAM
In 1972, petitioner David Webb was found guilty by a jury of robbery and sentenced to fifteen
years’ imprisonment. We affirmed. Webb v. State, 253 Ark. 448, 486 S.W.2d 684 (1972).
In 2009, petitioner filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The
trial court dismissed the petition as petitioner failed to obtain this court’s permission prior to seeking
coram nobis relief. 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, 637, 37 S.W.3d 599, 600 (2001) (per
curiam).
Subsequently, on June 22, 2009, petitioner filed in this court a pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the instant petition,
petitioner sets out no grounds at all for coram nobis relief. See Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 72, 285
S.W.3d 630, 632-33 (2008) (citing Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per curiam)).
Moreover, it is evident that petitioner has served his term of incarceration for the 1972 robbery
Cite as 2009 Ark. 497
conviction. A writ of error coram nobis was created to fill a gap in the legal system in certain limited
instances. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 573-74, 670 S.W.2d 426, 428 (1984). The writ provides the
petitioner relief from his or her criminal judgment of conviction, and if granted, the petitioner will be
given a new trial. Penn, 282 Ark. at 573, 574, 670 S.W.2d at 428. As petitioner has served the sentence
imposed in 1972, his claim is moot and a new trial would not be an appropriate remedy, even if there
were cause to grant the writ. See Anderson v. State, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403 (2003) (per curiam).
Because petitioner has failed to state grounds upon which to base petition for writ of error coram nobis,
and because any grounds for the writ that petitioner might state would be moot, we deny the petition
to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Petition denied.
-2-
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.
