ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

OCTOBER 30, 2003

CHARLES WHITFIELD

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 00-1139

PRO SE PETITION AND AMENDED PETITIONS TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, and MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO COMPEL RELEASE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RECORDS [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 99-1511]

PETITION, AMENDED PETITIONS, AND MOTIONS DENIED

Per Curiam

Charles Whitfield was found guilty by a jury of four counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, five counts of residential burglary, one count of attempted residential burglary, one county of second-degree battery, and one count of exposing another person to the human immunodeficiency virus. An aggregate sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. We affirmed. Whitfield v. State, 346 Ark. 43, 56 S.W.3d 357 (2001).

Whitfield subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 in the trial court which was denied. Whitfield did not file a timely notice of appeal and later sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. We denied the motion. Whitfield v. State, CR 02-1389 (Ark. March 13, 2003). (Per curiam).

Whitfield now asks in a petition and two amended petitions that this court reinvest jurisdictionin the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.1 -

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 and amended petitions, 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.

Petitioner contends that the writ is warranted on the following grounds: (1) the state introduced illegally seized evidence at trial that was obtained by an illegal warrant which authorized the taking of various samples from his body; (2) a false police report was used to establish probable cause to obtain the warrant and the warrant was not properly served; (3) the state and petitioner's defense attorneysuppressed evidence that would have shown that the warrant was invalid; (4) his attorney refused to investigate the illegality of the warrant and was thus ineffective; (5) the jury was contaminated by evidence placed in the jury room that was not introduced at trial but referred to by the state in its argument that petitioner was a habitual offender; (6) he was deprived of a fair trial because a surprise witness about whom neither the state nor his counsel advised him in advance testified about his criminal history; and (7) a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner during the pretrial proceedings was not properly addressed by the court.

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. In fact, all of the issues raised by petitioner as grounds for a writ of error coram nobis either could have been addressed in the trial court or, if not raised there by petitioner's counsel, could have been a basis for a petition under Rule 37.1 as claims of effective assistance of counsel. An error coram nobis proceeding is not a substitute for raising an issue at trial or under Rule 37. 1. See McArty v. State, 335 Ark. 445, 983 S.W.2d 418 (1998). Finally, petitioner asks that this court permit oral argument on the petition and issue an injunction to compel the Arkansas Department of Correction to release some of its records that petitioner asserts are pertinent to the error coram nobis allegations. As there is no ground stated on which the writ could be issued, the motions are denied.

Petition, amended petitions, and motions denied.

1 For clerical purposes, the instant petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis was assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal of the judgment.