Walter Bernard Farver v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 7, 2002

WALTER BERNARD FARVER

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CACR 94-913

PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN CIRCUIT COURT WITH PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CR 93-700-2-1]

PETITION DENIED

Walter Bernard Farver was found guilty by a jury of burglary, theft of property, and three counts of theft by receiving. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of twenty-seven years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Farver v. State, CACR 94-913 (November 8, 1995). Farver now asks this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ··²TopOfPage²····²TopOfPage²··-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.1 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, 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 Farver asserts the following grounds for the writ: (1) the trial court erred in not postponing his trial after the felony information was amended; (2) the prosecutor lied to the jury about his promise to Farver's accomplice of leniency in exchange for his testimony, and, moreover, the trial court ignored the prosecutor's unethical conduct when it was made known to the court by defense counsel's cross-examination of witnesses; (3) he was denied his right to an adequate omnibus hearing; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for burglary and one of the counts of theft by receiving.

All of the allegations concern matters which were known, or could have been known, at the time of trial and addressed at that time. A coram nobis proceeding does not provide a means to revisit claims of trial error or to address matters that clearly could have been raised in the trial court or on the record on direct appeal of the judgment. As a result, petitioner has not stated a

ground on which the writ could issue. Penn, supra.

Petition denied.

1 For clerical purposes, the court of appeals' docket number assigned to the direct appeal has been retained for this error coram nobis action.