Addison v. State

2020 Ark. 273

606 S.W.3d 73

Nicholas ADDISON, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-19-299

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: September 17, 2020

Nicholas Addison, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: David L. Eanes Jr., Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Nicholas Addison brings this appeal from the trial court's denial and dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. As Addison has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to issue the writ, we affirm.

In 2017, Addison entered a plea of guilty to robbery and first-degree battery. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 240 months' imprisonment for the robbery with an additional sentence of 120 months' imprisonment suspended. He was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment for the first-degree battery with 120 months' imprisonment suspended. The sentences were to be served concurrently. In 2018, Addison filed in the trial court the petition "seeking the writ and/or to vacate the judgment per error coram nobis."

The standard of review of an order for the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ. Newman v. State , 2014 Ark. 7, 2014 WL 197789. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State , 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. There is no abuse of discretion in the denial of error coram nobis relief when the claims in the petition were groundless. Osburn v. State , 2018 Ark. 341, 560 S.W.3d 774.

A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore , 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 that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Newman v. State , 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Roberts v. State , 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.

The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Dednam v. State , 2019 Ark. 8, 564 S.W.3d 259. A writ of error coram nobis is available to address certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Howard v. State , 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Error coram nobis proceedings are attended by a "strong presumption" that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson , 2014 Ark. 91, at 3, 431 S.W.3d at 854.

Addison argued in his petition that issuance of the writ was warranted because his attorney and the prosecutor conducted an elaborate scheme to cleverly deceive him into entering a guilty plea. His statements in support of the allegation were conclusory and failed to meet his burden of providing factual substantiation for his claim that trial counsel or the prosecutor somehow deceived him or otherwise placed him under undue duress to enter his plea. Conclusory claims are not a ground for the writ.¹ Green v. State , 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524, 529.

Addison's argument was, in essence, that his attorney did not properly advise him when the plea was entered. We have held that a petitioner's allegation that he or she was under duress when the plea of guilty was entered by virtue of improvident advice from counsel constitutes an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel with the underlying claim that the plea was not entered intelligently and voluntarily because of the advice provided by counsel. Griffin v. State , 2018 Ark. 10, 535 S.W.3d 261. An allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. White v. State , 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285. Even when counsel's advice is erroneous or improvident, it does not demonstrate that the petitioner has stated a ground for a writ of error coram nobis, because poor advice does not constitute a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record that warrants issuance of the writ. See Green , 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Erroneous advice regarding parole-eligibility status did not support a claim of a coerced plea and thus did not provide a basis for coram nobis relief.). Any argument that Addison desired to raise concerning whether he was afforded effective assistance of counsel should have been brought pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2019), not in a petition for writ of error coram nobis. White , 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d...