Dickerson v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Approximately twenty years after being found guilty of rape and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment, petitioner petitioned pro se to the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case. As grounds for issuance of the writ, petitioner contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment and that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that petitioner’s assertions were not grounds for a writ of error coram nobis. A rare remedy, the function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the circuit court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. The Court found both of petitioner’s assertions to be outside the purview of the writ.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 247
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 90-163
Opinion Delivered
LEONARD DICKERSON
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
June 2, 2011
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS [PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, CR 89-1660]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 1990, petitioner Leonard Dickerson was found guilty of rape and sentenced as a
habitual offender to 40 years’ imprisonment. We affirmed. Dickerson v. State, CR 90-163 (Ark.
Jan. 28, 1991) (unpublished).
Now before us is petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case.1 A 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. Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam); Fudge v. State, 2010 Ark. 426; Grant v.
State, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam) (citing Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539,
1
For clerical purposes, the petition was assigned the docket number for the direct
appeal of the judgment of conviction, CR 90-163.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 247
___ S.W.3d ___); see also Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its
denial than its approval. Rayford v. State, 2011 Ark. 86 (per curiam); Whitham v. State, 2011
Ark. 28 (per curiam); Fudge, 2010 Ark. 426; Barker v. State, 2010 Ark. 354, ___ S.W.3d ___;
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) (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 third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction
and appeal. Pitts, 336 Ark. at 583, 986 S.W.2d at 409. The function of the writ is to secure
relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its
rendition if it had been known to the circuit court and which, through no negligence or fault
of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. Grant, 2010 Ark.
286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (citing Newman, 2009 Ark. 539, ___ S.W.3d ___); see also Sanders v.
State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (2008) (per curiam); Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446, 182
S.W.3d 477 (2004). The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of
fact extrinsic to the record. Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (per curiam); Sanders, 374 Ark. 70,
285 S.W.3d 630. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the
judgment of conviction is valid. Gardner v. State, 2011 Ark. 27 (per curiam); Barker, 2010 Ark.
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 247
354, ___ S.W.3d ___; Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005); Venn v. State,
282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740
(1975)).
As grounds for issuance of the writ, petitioner contends that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the judgment and that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel.
Neither assertion is grounds for a writ of error coram nobis.
As stated, to warrant a writ of error coram nobis, a petitioner has the burden of bringing
forth some fact that was not known at the time of trial. Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam)
(citing Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550). A claim that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a
finding of guilt is a direct attack on the judgment that is properly made at trial and on the
record on appeal. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a judgment is not an issue
cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding. Cooper v. State, 2010 Ark. 471 (per curiam);
Flanagan v. State, 2010 Ark. 140 (per curiam). Likewise, issues of mere trial error are not
grounds for the writ. Flanagan, 2010 Ark. 140.
With respect to petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, such
assertions are also outside the purview of a coram nobis proceeding. Benton v. State, 2011 Ark.
211 (per curiam); Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606 (per curiam) (citing Mills v. State, 2009 Ark.
463 (per curiam)). Such allegations should have been raised in a timely postconviction
proceeding pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.4 (1990), and a petition for
writ of error coram nobis is not a substitute for proceeding for postconviction relief in a timely
3
Cite as 2011 Ark. 247
petition or an opportunity to raise new allegations that could have been raised under the rule.
Benton, 2011 Ark. 211.
Finally, in its response to the petition, the State asserts that the petition was untimely
because petitioner did not demonstrate due diligence. Although there is no specific time limit
for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for
relief. Harris v. State, 2010 Ark. 489 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2010 Ark. 164 (2010).
Because petitioner does not present a claim that supports a meritorious attack on the judgment,
we need not consider whether the petition was brought in a diligent manner. Harris, 2010 Ark.
489.
Petition denied.
4
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.
