petition for writ error in Arkansas

2025Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(a) states that “if the petition and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the trial court shall make written findings to that effect, specifying any parts of the files, or records that are relied upon to sustain the court’s findings.” If the circuit court fails to make findings as required by Rule 37.3(a), this court will reverse unless the record 5 Additionally, Meredith contends the circuit court’s passing mention of Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91 , amounts to an abuse of discretion because it

2016Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91 , 431 S.W.3d 852 . |aThe trial court’s findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

2017Goff v. State, 2012 Ark. 68, at 3 , 398 S.W.3d 896, 898 (per |5 periam).

2017Goff v. State, 2012 Ark. 68, at 3 , 398 S.W.3d 896, 898 (per |5 periam).

2007See Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 637 , 37 S.W.3d 599, 600 (2001) (circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after this court grants permission).

2007See Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 637 , 37 S.W.3d 599, 600 (2001) (circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after this court grants permission).

2018Mason v. State , 2014 Ark. 288 , 436 S.W.3d 469 (per curiam).

2018Mason v. State , 2014 Ark. 288 , 436 S.W.3d 469 (per curiam).

2023White v. State, 2015 Ark. 151, at 4 , 460 S.W.3d 285, 288 .

2023White v. State, 2015 Ark. 151, at 4 , 460 S.W.3d 285, 288 .

2017Cf. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 577 , 670 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1984) (“If [the petition for writ of error coram nobis] has merit, by all means a writ should be 3 Cite as 2017 Ark. 20 granted; if the petitioner fails in his burden of proof, then at least a hearing will have resulted.

2017Cf. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 577 , 670 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1984) (“If [the petition for writ of error coram nobis] has merit, by all means a writ should be 3 Cite as 2017 Ark. 20 granted; if the petitioner fails in his burden of proof, then at least a hearing will have resulted.

2020Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7 .

2014The trial court’s findings of fact, on which it bases its 13 Cite as 2014 Ark. 7 decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

2019Id. 1 Smith’s first three pro se petitions to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenged his convictions on the basis that the two victims had made inconsistent statements, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence, the prosecution fabricated evidence, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

2019Roberts v. State , 2013 Ark. 56 , 425 S.W.3d 771 .

2016Id. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. 350 Ark. 286, 365 S.W.3d 894 .

2015Cromeans v. State, 2013 Ark. 273 , 2013 WL 3179379 (per curiam) (citing Sparks v. State, 2012 Ark. 464 , 2012 WL 6218471 (per curiam)); Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286 , 365 S.W.3d 894 (per curiam) (citing Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539 , 354 S.W.3d 61 ).

2021Osburn v. State, 2018 Ark. 341 , 560 S.W.3d 774 .

2021Id.

2013In Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 33 , 76 S.W.3d 813 (2002) (per curiam), we granted a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis where there was an allegation of a Brady violation.

2013In Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 33 , 76 S.W.3d 813 (2002) (per curiam), we granted a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis where there was an allegation of a Brady violation.

2016Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4-6 , 456 S.W.3d 374, 377 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (holding that a psychological examination of the petitioner, which had • been reported to the circuit court, showed that the petitioner’s sanity was an issue presented to the circuit court and could not later be considered on a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4-6 , 456 S.W.3d 374, 377 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (holding that a psychological examination of the petitioner, which had • been reported to the circuit court, showed that the petitioner’s sanity was an issue presented to the circuit court and could not later be considered on a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4-6 , 456 S.W.3d 374, 377 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (holding that a psychological examination of the petitioner, which had • been reported to the circuit court, showed that the petitioner’s sanity was an issue presented to the circuit court and could not later be considered on a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman, 2015 Ark. 69 , 456 S.W.3d 374 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (stating that the mental examination of the petitioner by state hospital.' officials, which was reported to the trial court, showed that any possible claim of the petitioner’s insanity was before the trial court and could not later be considered in a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2017Id.

2016Swanigan v. State, 2016 Ark. 109 , 485 S.W.3d 695 (per curiam).

2016Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4-6 , 456 S.W.3d 374, 377 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (holding that a psychological examination of the petitioner, which had • been reported to the circuit court, showed that the petitioner’s sanity was an issue presented to the circuit court and could not later be considered on a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman, 2015 Ark. 69 , 456 S.W.3d 374 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (stating that the mental examination of the petitioner by state hospital.' officials, which was reported to the trial court, showed that any possible claim of the petitioner’s insanity was before the trial court and could not later be considered in a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, at 4-6 , 456 S.W.3d 374, 377 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 , cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (holding that a psychological examination of the petitioner, which had • been reported to the circuit court, showed that the petitioner’s sanity was an issue presented to the circuit court and could not later be considered on a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).

2016Westerman, 2015 Ark. 69 , 456 S.W.3d 374 (citing Ridgeway v. State, 239 Ark. 377 , 389 S.W.2d 617 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 902 , 86 S.Ct. 236 , 15 L.Ed.2d 156 (1965) (stating that the mental examination of the petitioner by state hospital.' officials, which was reported to the trial court, showed that any possible claim of the petitioner’s insanity was before the trial court and could not later be considered in a petition for writ of error coram nobis)).