Sims v. State (Per Curiam)
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.
After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to 600 months' imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner then sought postconviction relief in the trial court. The petition was dismissed on the ground it was not timely filed. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment-and-commitment order. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claim was not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding.
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 458 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CACR 08-616 Opinion Delivered WALTER J. SIMS PETITIONER V. STATE OF ARKANSAS December 6, 2012 PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 05-937] RESPONDENT PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2008, petitioner Walter J. Sims was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to 600 months imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Sims v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 99 (unpublished). After the judgment was affirmed, petitioner sought postconviction relief in the trial court in a petition pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2009). The petition was dismissed. On appeal, this court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Rule 37.1 petition was not timely filed. Sims v. State, 2011 Ark. 135 (per curiam). 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.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. Rodriguez v. State, 1 For clerical purposes, the petition was assigned the docket number for the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction. Cite as 2012 Ark. 458 2012 Ark. 403 (per curiam); Pinder v. State, 2011 Ark. 401 (per curiam); Cloird v. State, 2011 Ark. 303 (per curiam); Dickerson v. State, 2011 Ark. 247 (per curiam); Cox v. State, 2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam); Fudge v. State, 2010 Ark. 426 (per curiam). A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Winbush v. State, 2012 Ark. 392 (per curiam); Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 228 (per curiam); Camp v. State, 2012 Ark. 226 (per curiam); Loggins v. State, 2012 Ark. 97 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per curiam); Cloird, 2011 Ark. 303; Newman v. State, 2010 Ark. 10 (per curiam); Thomas v. State, 367 Ark. 478, 241 S.W.3d 247 (2006) (per curiam). 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. Camp, 2012 Ark. 226; Pinder, 2011 Ark. 401; Burks v. State, 2011 Ark. 173 (per curiam). To warrant a writ of error coram nobis, a petitioner has the burden of bringing forth some fact, extrinsic to the record, that was not known at the time of trial. Cloird, 2011 Ark. 303; see also Dickerson, 2011 Ark. 247; Cox, 2011 Ark. 96. Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Smith v. State, 2011 Ark. 306 (per curiam); Rayford v. State, 2011 Ark. 86 (per curiam); Barker v. State, 2010 Ark. 354, ___ S.W.3d ___; Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d 890 (2005). The sole ground for relief raised by petitioner in the instant petition is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment-and-commitment order. This court has previously recognized that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address errors found in only four 2 Cite as 2012 Ark. 458 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. Camp, 2012 Ark. 226; Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 550 (per curiam). The issue of the sufficiency of the evidence is not cognizable in a coram-nobis proceeding. Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. 403 (per curiam); Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. 542; Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). The sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters to be addressed at trial. See Martin, 2012 Ark. 44; see also Cooper v. State, 2012 Ark. 471 (per curiam); Grant, 2010 Ark. 286, ___ S.W.3d ___; Flanagan v. State, 2010 Ark. 140 (per curiam). Petition denied. Walter J. Sims, pro se appellant. No response. 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.
