Ernest Brown v. State of Arkansas

2019 Ark. 348

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: November 21, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Digitally signed by Susan P. Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of Cite as 2019 Ark. 348 this document Date: SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 2021.08.16 No. CR-19-142 14:19:37 -05'00'

Opinion Delivered: November 21, 2019 ERNEST BROWN APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE V. CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF ARKANSAS [NO. 18CR-09-44] APPELLEE HONORABLE JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate justice

Ernest Brown appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of error

coram nobis. Brown contends that the writ should issue and the judgment be vacated

because his defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty. Because Brown has failed to

demonstrate that the circuit court abused its discretion, we affirm.

In 2009, Brown entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced to

180 months’ imprisonment. Imposition of an additional 120 months’ imprisonment was

suspended. In 2018, Brown filed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. He alleged that

his counsel did not advise him correctly on the percentage of his sentence that he would be

required to serve before becoming parole eligible or the effect that his prior convictions

would have on his parole eligibility.

We review a circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of error coram nobis for

abuse of discretion. Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. A writ

of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17

S.W.3d 87 (2000). The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment when there

existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial

court and that, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward

prior to the judgment. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The writ is allowed

only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most

fundamental nature. Dednam v. State, 2019 Ark. 8, 564 S.W.3d 259. A writ of error coram

nobis is available to address certain errors that are found in one of four categories. Howard

v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38. Error coram nobis proceedings are attended by a

“strong presumption” that the judgment of conviction is valid. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, at 3,

431 S.W.3d at 854.

Brown argues he was coerced into pleading guilty, and therefore, the circuit court

abused its discretion in denying the writ. His arguments for issuance of the writ were that

(1) his attorney induced him to plead guilty by letting him believe he would be parole

eligible sooner; (2) counsel did not inform him of the full effect of his prior convictions;

and (3) counsel was inadequate by withholding the knowledge of the effect of his prior

convictions on his parole-eligibility status.

To prevail on a claim of writ of error coram nobis on the ground that a plea was

coerced, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the plea was the result of fear,

duress, or threats of mob violence. Hall v. State, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867.

2 The allegation that a guilty plea was coerced in the sense that it was involuntarily and

unknowingly given as a result of erroneous advice does not constitute a showing of a coerced

plea within the scope of a coram nobis proceeding. Griffin v. State, 2018 Ark. 10, 535

S.W.3d 261; see also Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Erroneous advice

regarding parole-eligibility status did not support a claim of a coerced plea and thus did not

provide a basis for coram nobis relief.). We have held that a petitioner’s allegation that he

or she was induced to plead guilty by virtue of improvident advice from counsel constitutes

an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Griffin, 2018 Ark. 10, 535 S.W.3d 261. An

allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.

White v. State, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285.

Brown’s arguments that counsel did not fully explain his parole eligibility or the effect

of his prior convictions do not rise to the level of coercion sufficient to meet his burden of

establishing grounds for the writ. Any assistance-of-counsel argument that Brown wanted

to make in the plea proceeding should have been raised pursuant to Arkansas Rule of

Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2007). White, 2015 Ark. 151, 460 S.W.3d 285; see also State v.

Tejeda-Acosta, 2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673 (The claim that the petitioner’s plea of guilty

was induced in the sense that it was involuntarily and unknowingly given as a result of

erroneous advice from his counsel was a ground for relief under the Rule, not a ground for

a writ of error coram nobis.). Error coram nobis proceedings are not a substitute for

proceeding under Rule 37.1 to challenge the validity of a guilty plea, nor are the two

proceedings interchangeable. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852

3 Because we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ, we

affirm.

Ernest Brown, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.