T
tony5158
Guest
can a writ of coram nobis be used in a civil case where a judgement was agreed to under duress and possible legal malpractice to vacate the judgement?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Read the below:
The function of the writ of error coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered
while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition 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. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a
strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. The court is not required to
accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Due diligence is required in making
application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be
denied. The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not
suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not
merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. 257 Ark. at 645-46, 519 S.W.2d at
741.
A writ of error coram nobis is an exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an
issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was
somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had
it been known to the trial court. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing
Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975).
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address
errors of the most fundamental nature. A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal
conviction being challenged. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997),
citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).
The following guidelines are applicable when considering a petition for writ of error coram
nobis:
(1) the function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered
while 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 before rendition of judgment;
(2) coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of
conviction is valid; the court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the
petition;
(3) due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid
excuse for delay, the petition will be denied; and
(4) the mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice;
the application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relief upon and not merely
state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. Penn, Larimore, supra.
A petitioner of such a writ must demonstrate that there was some fact extrinsic to the
record which could not have been known at trial which would warrant issuance of a writ of
error coram nobis. McArty v. State, Ark. (1998 ).
Newly discovered evidence in itself (REMEMBER these two words for a later date) is
not a basis for relief under coram nobis. Larimore, supra; Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 374, 784
S.W.2d 595 (1990 ). A claim of newly discovered evidence must be addressed to the trial
court in a motion for new trial made within the time in which a notice of appeal must be
filed. See A.R.Cr.P. 33.3; Penn, supra.
The Circuit Court must "determine the merits" of an appellants' coram nobis petitions. The
Circuit Court has the sole discretion to grant or deny [the writ]. Larimore, supra.
On the issue of the necessity of reinvestment BY the ASC, 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 only after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal AND only after the
supreme court grants permission. Once jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court,
reinvestment to any other state court is within the sole authority and discretion of the
Supreme Court. Larimore, supra.
The question to you is, what prevented you from stating stating during the trial that you felt you agreed to the terms while under duress. If you felt that way during the trial, the writ of coram nobis most likely will not apply.
The function of the writ of error coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered
while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition 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. Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a
strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. The court is not required to
accept at face value the allegations of the petition. Due diligence is required in making
application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be
denied. The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not
suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relied upon and not
merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. 257 Ark. at 645-46, 519 S.W.2d at
741.
A writ of error coram nobis is an exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an
issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was
somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had
it been known to the trial court. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing
Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975).
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address
errors of the most fundamental nature. A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal
conviction being challenged. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997),
citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954).
The following guidelines are applicable when considering a petition for writ of error coram
nobis:
(1) the function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered
while 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 before rendition of judgment;
(2) coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of
conviction is valid; the court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the
petition;
(3) due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid
excuse for delay, the petition will be denied; and
(4) the mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice;
the application should make a full disclosure of specific facts relief upon and not merely
state conclusions as to the nature of such facts. Penn, Larimore, supra.
A petitioner of such a writ must demonstrate that there was some fact extrinsic to the
record which could not have been known at trial which would warrant issuance of a writ of
error coram nobis. McArty v. State, Ark. (1998 ).
Newly discovered evidence in itself (REMEMBER these two words for a later date) is
not a basis for relief under coram nobis. Larimore, supra; Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 374, 784
S.W.2d 595 (1990 ). A claim of newly discovered evidence must be addressed to the trial
court in a motion for new trial made within the time in which a notice of appeal must be
filed. See A.R.Cr.P. 33.3; Penn, supra.
The Circuit Court must "determine the merits" of an appellants' coram nobis petitions. The
Circuit Court has the sole discretion to grant or deny [the writ]. Larimore, supra.
On the issue of the necessity of reinvestment BY the ASC, 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 only after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal AND only after the
supreme court grants permission. Once jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court,
reinvestment to any other state court is within the sole authority and discretion of the
Supreme Court. Larimore, supra.
The question to you is, what prevented you from stating stating during the trial that you felt you agreed to the terms while under duress. If you felt that way during the trial, the writ of coram nobis most likely will not apply.