McDaniel v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 84-54
Opinion Delivered
April 23, 2009
v.
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND
COUNTY, CR 81-135]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PETITION DENIED.
TIMOTHY ELLIS McDANIEL
Petitioner
PER CURIAM
A jury found petitioner Timothy Ellis McDaniel guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced
him to life imprisonment. This court affirmed. McDaniel v. State, 283 Ark. 352, 676 S.W.2d 732
(1984) (decision subsequent to remand for separate trials in McDaniel v. State, 278 Ark. 631, 648
S.W.2d 57 (1983)). Petitioner has now filed a petition in this court in which he requests permission
to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 After a judgment has been
affirmed on appeal, a petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary
because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis only after we grant
permission. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
Petitioner asserts as the basis for reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a
petition for the writ that he was not given a psychiatric evaluation before trial. Petitioner does not
assert that he was not competent, but alleges that the trial court intended for him to be evaluated, but
1
appeal.
For clerical purposes, the instant petition was assigned the same docket number as the direct
that no competency evaluation was done.
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 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). For the writ
to issue following the affirmance of a conviction, the petitioner must show a fundamental error of
fact extrinsic to the record. Thomas v. State, 367 Ark. 478, 241 S.W.3d 247 (2006) (per curiam).
The fact that petitioner was provided no competency evaluation would not be a fact extrinsic
to the record. Because petitioner failed to make the requisite showing in order to demonstrate cause
to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court, we deny the petition.
Petition denied.
Gunter, J., not participating.
-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.
