Clark v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-1176
Opinion Delivered
April 2, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, CR 88-148,
HON. RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE]
MICHAEL CLARK
Appellant
v.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
In 1988, appellant Michael Clark entered a guilty plea to charges of burglary and theft and
received a sentence of ten years’ supervised probation. In 2008, appellant filed a petition in the trial
court seeking a writ of error coram nobis.1 The trial court denied the petition and appellant lodged
an appeal in this court. Appellant’s brief was due on November 17, 2008, and on November 24,
2008, appellant tendered a brief that did not comply with our rules. On December 8, 2008, appellant
submitted another brief that failed to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7, which our
clerk refused to file. On December 22, 2008, appellant once again tendered a non-compliant brief.
Finally, on January 6, 2009, appellant tendered a brief that appears to comply with our rules of
procedure and filed a motion for belated brief.
From a review of the record, it is clear that appellant cannot prevail on appeal. An appeal
1
In those instances, as here, where the judgment of conviction was entered on a plea of guilty or
nolo contendere, or the judgment of conviction was not appealed, the petition for writ of error coram
nobis is filed directly in the trial court. See Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per
curiam).
of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the
appellant could not prevail. Anderson v. State, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403 (2003) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and the motion is moot.
The standard of review of the denial of a writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying the writ. Magby v. State, 348 Ark. 415, 72 S.W.3d 508 (2002) (per
curiam). An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Cloird
v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182 S.W.3d 477 (2004). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion to
deny the petition.
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 function of the writ is to
secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented
its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the
defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182
S.W.3d 477 (2004). A writ of error coram nobis is appropriate when an issue was not addressed or
could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown. Larimore v.
State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997).
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 errors found in one
of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by
the prosecutor, a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.
Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008) (per curiam).
-2-
The basis upon which appellant sought the writ was his claim that the period of probation
to which he was sentenced exceeded the statutory limit in effect. Appellant’s claim of error does not
fall within one of the recognized categories of error. Nor do we need to consider whether the
claimed error is of the requisite fundamental nature, because the facts upon which the error was
asserted were not hidden or unknown. The statutes that appellant cites were available at the time of
appellant’s trial and conviction, and the alleged error could have been addressed at that time.
Appellant’s petition did not set forth a claim cognizable for error coram nobis relief and the trial
court did not err in denying the petition.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
-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.
