Rodriguez v. State (Majority)
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.
Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree in the stabbing death of Gabino Mendoza. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, claiming (1) the prosecution violated his right to due process by coercing three persons into making false statements and that the three later provided affidavits attesting to the coercion, and (2) his attorney did not afford him effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's claims did not state a basis for the writ.
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 393
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 07-738
Opinion Delivered
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ
PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT
October 11, 2012
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS [BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR05-939]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2006, petitioner Fernando Rodriguez was found guilty by a jury of murder in the
first degree in the stabbing death of Gabino Mendoza.
He was sentenced to life
imprisonment. Petitioner appealed from the judgment, and this court affirmed. Rodriguez v.
State, 372 Ark. 335, 276 S.W.3d 208 (2008).
The evidence against petitioner was substantial. The prosecution presented the
testimony of a neighbor and three family members that there was a fight between petitioner
and the victim that resulted in the victim’s lying bloody on the ground. The defense
presented testimony of other relatives who had witnessed the fight, and petitioner himself
took the stand and admitted that he fought with the victim, that he had something in his hand
during the fight, and that the altercation ended with the victim bleeding on the ground.
After the judgment was affirmed on direct appeal, petitioner filed in the trial court a
Cite as 2012 Ark. 393
timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure
37.1 (2008). The trial court denied the petition, and we affirmed. Rodriguez v. State, 2010
Ark. 78 (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. McFerrin
v. State, 2012 Ark. 305 (per curiam); Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 541 (per curiam); Pinder v.
State, 2011 Ark. 401 (per curiam); Dickerson v. State, 2011 Ark. 247 (per curiam); Cox v. State,
2011 Ark. 96 (per curiam); Fudge v. State, 2010 Ark. 426; Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, 365
S.W.3d 849 (per curiam) (citing Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61); 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. Anderson v. State, 2012 Ark. 270, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam);
Coley v. State, 2011 Ark. 540 (per curiam); Pinder, 2011 Ark. 401; 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. Coley, 2011 Ark. 540 (citing Pitts v. State, 336
Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per curiam)). We have held that a writ of error coram
1
The petition was assigned the docket number for the direct appeal of the judgment
of conviction, CR-07-738.
2
Cite as 2012 Ark. 393
nobis is 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. McFerrin, 2012 Ark. 305; Coley, 2011
Ark. 540; Pinder, 2011 Ark. 401; Cloird v. State, 2011 Ark. 303 (per curiam); Smith v. State,
2011 Ark. 306 (per curiam); Biggs v. State, 2011 Ark. 304 (per curiam); Grant, 2010 Ark. 286,
365 S.W.3d 849; 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. Williams, 2011 Ark. 541;
Pinder, 2011 Ark. 401; 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. Carter v. State, 2012 Ark. 186 (per curiam); Coley, 2011 Ark.
540; Cloird, 2011 Ark. 303; Smith, 2011 Ark. 306; Gardner v. State, 2011 Ark. 27 (per
curiam); Barker, 2010 Ark. 354, ___ S.W.3d ___; Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332, 201 S.W.3d
890 (2005); Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984) (citing Troglin v. State, 257
Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975)).
Petitioner first contends that the prosecution violated his right to due process of law
by coercing three persons into making false statements and that the three later provided
3
Cite as 2012 Ark. 393
affidavits attesting to the coercion. He states that the affidavits were before the trial court,
but the trial court made no mention of the weight that the court gave the affidavits and that
it appears that the court “simply dismissed the affidavits out of hand.” Petitioner argues that
the testimony of the three witnesses was false, as demonstrated by the affidavits, which were
“summarily rejected” by the trial court. Petitioner asserts that his attorney at trial knew that
the testimony was false, suggesting that counsel should have prevented the statements and
testimony from being used by the prosecution.
Petitioner’s claims do not state a basis for the writ. Mere trial error is not a ground for
granting a writ of error coram nobis. An issue that was known at the time of trial and was
addressed, or could have been addressed, is not one cognizable in an error-coram-nobis
proceeding. Anderson v. State, 2012 Ark. 270, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). This applies
even to issues of trial error of constitutional dimension that could have been raised in the trial
court. Rodgers v. State, 2012 Ark. 193 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 44 (per
curiam). By petitioner admissions, all the assertions made by him concerning the three
witnesses and their statements and testimony were known at the time of trial and could have
been addressed at that time. Petitioner has not shown that there was any information extrinsic
to the record that, even if it had been known at the time of trial, would somehow have
created an issue sufficient to call into question the outcome of the trial. He has fallen far short
of establishing that there is a ground to issue a writ of error coram nobis.
To the extent that petitioner may have intended his claims to be an attack on the
sufficiency of the evidence, such issues are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings. Butler
4
Cite as 2012 Ark. 393
v. State, 2011 Ark. 542 (per curiam). The sufficiency of the evidence and 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; Flanagan v. State, 2010 Ark. 140 (per
curiam).
Finally, petitioner alleges directly that his attorney did not afford him the effective
assistance of counsel to which he was entitled. The allegation is not a basis for the writ. This
court has consistently held that allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are outside the
purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. Rodgers, 2012 Ark. 193; Martin, 2012 Ark. 44; Butler,
2011 Ark. 542; Benton v. State, 2011 Ark. 211 (per curiam); Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606 (per
curiam); Scott v. State, 2009 Ark. 437 (per curiam); McArty v. State, 335 Ark. 445, 983 S.W.2d
418 (per curiam).
Petition denied.
Fernando Rodriguez, pro se appellant.
No response.
5
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.
