ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
PER CURIAM
JANUARY 25, 2001
DARRYL HUSSEY
a/k/a Daryl Desha Hussey
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
CR 00-745
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW COUNTY, NO. CR 96-56-2(A), HON. SAMUEL B. POPE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; APPELLEE'S MOTION TO STRIKE A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S ABSTRACT MOOT
In February 1997, Darryl Hussey pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Sixteen months later in June 1998, Hussey filed in the trial court a pro se motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion, and Hussey filed a timely notice of appeal, but he did not tender the record on appeal to this court in a timely manner. Hussey subsequently sought a rule on clerk to lodge the record belatedly which we denied on the ground that Hussey was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c). Hussey v. State, CR 99-1004 (November 4, 1999).
In November 1999, Hussey filed in the trial court a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the writ should be issued to vacate the judgment of conviction in his case because a deputy prosecutor, Caryn Short, who participated in his case when he pleaded guilty was nota licensed attorney.1 The trial court denied the petition, and Hussey has appealed to this court.
We first note that the remedy when a trial court denies a petition for writ of error coram nobis is a petition for writ of certiorari to this court, not an appeal. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997), citing Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy we will consider the matter as if Hussey had proceeded in accordance with prevailing procedure.
··²TopOfPage²·· ··²TopOfPage²··-A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 ( 2000). Literally, coram nobis means our court, in our presence, before us. Penn v. State, supra. The essence of the writ of error coram nobis is that it is addressed to the very court which renders the judgment where injustice is alleged to have been done, rather than to an appellate or other court. Black's Law Dictionary 337 (6th ed. 1990). 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). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors of the most fundamental nature 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, supra. The function of the writ of coram nobis 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, throughno negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. Larimore, supra.
In the instant matter, appellant Hussey could have raised the issue of Ms. Short's qualification to serve as a deputy prosecutor at the time he pleaded guilty. He did not do so, and we cannot say that the trial court erred in declining to issue a writ of error coram nobis. The court's order is therefore affirmed.
The State has filed a motion asking that certain pages in the appellant's brief be stricken on the ground that it includes material not a part of the record. As the order is affirmed, the motion is moot.
Affirmed; appellee's motion to strike a portion of appellant's abstract moot.
1 We take judicial notice that Ms. Short was certified on June 5, 1996, in accordance with Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar as a student practitioner.