Bell v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bell v. State

700 S.W.2d 788, 287 Ark. 430, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2294

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 16, 1985

DocketCR 85-146

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 700 S.W.2d 788 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 700 S.W.2d 788, 287 Ark. 430, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2294 (Ark. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On July 6, 1978, the circuit court entered a judgment onr-a jury verdict, committing the appellant to life imprisonment for rape. No appeal was taken, nor was a petition for post-cónviction relief filed within the three years allowed by Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c). In June, 1983, Bell filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which was denied after a hearing at which Bell testified that after the trial he told his attorney, both over the telephone and in a letter, that he wanted to discuss the matter of an appeal, but the attorney did not communicate with him. This appeal from the trial court’s denial of relief comes to this court under Rule 29(1 )(b) and (e).

Whatever remedy Bell had for his attorney’s failure to appeal could have been asserted under Rule 37, but the three-year limitation was allowed to lapse. The writ of error coram nobis is available only when there existed some fact that would have prevented the rendition of judgment had the fact been known to the trial court. Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). No such situation is presented in the present case; so the trial court properly denied the writ.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George Rose Smith, Justice.

On July 6, 1978, the circuit court entered a judgment onr-a jury verdict, committing the appellant to life imprisonment for rape. No appeal was taken, nor was a petition for post-cónviction relief filed within the three years allowed by Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c). In June, 1983, Bell filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which was denied after a hearing at which Bell testified that after the trial he told his attorney, both over the telephone and in a letter, that he wanted to discuss the matter of an appeal, but the attorney did not communicate with him. This appeal from the trial court’s denial of relief comes to this court under Rule 29(1 )(b) and (e).

Whatever remedy Bell had for his attorney’s failure to appeal could have been asserted under Rule 37, but the three-year limitation was allowed to lapse. The writ of error coram nobis is available only when there existed some fact that would have prevented the rendition of judgment had the fact been known to the trial court. Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). No such situation is presented in the present case; so the trial court properly denied the writ.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 S.W.2d 788, 287 Ark. 430, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-ark-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack