ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 24, 2002

ROBERT BLACKWELL

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 98-456

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 95-2175]

PETITION DENIED

In 1997, Robert Blackwell, a dentist, was found guilty by a jury of violating the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-55-101, et seq. (Repl. 1997). He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment, ordered to pay a fine, and directed to make restitution. We affirmed. Blackwell v. State, 338 Ark. 671, 1 S.W.3d 399 (1999). Blackwell now asks this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ··²TopOfPage²····²TopOfPage²··-The 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. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001).

-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). 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, citing Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. After reviewing the instant petition, we do not find that petitioner has stated good cause to grant leave to proceed with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. In fact, petitioner appears to have entirely misconstrued the purpose of a coram nobis proceeding.

As grounds for the writ, petitioner first asserts that the Arkansas Court of Appeals erred in its decision on appeal with respect to the issue of the legality of the search of his office and the seizure of certain items. This court and not the court of appeals ruled on petitioner's direct appeal from the judgment of conviction; but, regardless of which appellate court affirms a judgment, error coram nobis proceedings do not provide a means to revisit the appellate court's ruling on an issue. Issues which were, or could have been, raised at trial and on the record on direct appeal of the judgment are settled and are not cognizable as grounds for the writ. Mosley v. State, 333 Ark. 273, 968 S.W.2d 612 (1998).

Petitioner next challenges the trial and appellate courts' conclusion that he was not denied a speedy trial. Again, the issue is one which was raised in the trial and addressed on appeal. The speedy-trial issue is not cognizable in this proceeding.

In another allegation of trial error, petitioner contends that the State elicited false testimony from witnesses at trial and the "corrected facts" were never presented to the jury. Petitioner does not contend that his attorney at trial was unable through some subterfuge by the State to investigate the facts and question the witnesses before the jury. Even if it can be said that a witness was untruthful, the trial court is the proper arena to question witnesses and bring out the truth. An error coram nobis action is not available to argue the veracity of trial witnesses.

Finally, petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he was denied a ruling by the trial court when he complained of counsel's inadequacy.

Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are properly raised under our postconviction rule, Criminal Procedure Rule 37. Such allegations do not fit within the narrow purview of an coram nobis proceeding. McArty v. State, 335 Ark. 445, 983 S.W.2d 418 (1998).

None of the claims raised by petitioner demonstrates that there was some fundamental error at trial or that there existed some fact which would have prevented rendition of the judgment if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. Rather, all of the issues raised by petitioner as grounds for a writ of error coram nobis either could have been, or were, addressed in the trial court or could have been a basis for a timely petition under Rule 37 as claims of effective assistance of counsel. An error coram nobis proceeding is not a substitute for raising an issue at trial, on the record on appeal, or under Rule 37.

Petition denied