Robert Sherman Robinson v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 90­140  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  ROBERT SHERMAN ROBINSON  Petitioner  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Respondent  Opinion Delivered  March 9, 2006  PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION  IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A  PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS  [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 89­  2109]  PETITION DENIED  PER CURIAM  In 1990, Robert Sherman Robinson was found guiltyof aggravated robbery, theft of property,  and theft by receiving.  An aggregate term of 155 years’ imprisonment was imposed.  We affirmed.  Robinson v. State, 303 Ark. 351, 797  S.W.2d 425 (1990).  Robinson subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief in the trial court that was  1  denied.  We affirmed the order.  Robinson v. State, CR 97­403 (Ark. May 28, 1998) (per curiam).  On February 9, 2006,  Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition in this court  asking that jurisdiction be reinvested  in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram  nobis.  The petition for leave to proceed in the trial court was 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.  Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).  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. 1  When petitioner was convicted in 1990, this state’s postconviction remedy was encompassed  in Criminal Procedure Rule 36.4.  Rule 36.4 was later abolished and Criminal Procedure Rule 37  was reinstated in a revised form on January 1, 1991, as our postconviction remedy.  In the Matter  of the Reinstatement of Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, 303 Ark. Appx.  746, 797 S.W.2d 458 (1990) (per curiam).  Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999) (per curiam).  We have held that a writ of error  coram  nobis  was  available  to  address  certain  fundamental errors  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 third­party 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).  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.  Accordingly, the petition is denied.  The sole ground for relief advanced by petitioner is the claim that he was denied effective  assistance of counsel at trial and in the postconviction proceeding in his case.  With respect to the  claim as it relates to trial counsel, it is well settled that claims of  ineffective assistance of trial counsel  are outside the purview of a coram nobis proceeding.  McArty v. State, 335 Ark. 445, 983 S.W.2d  418 (1998) (per curiam).  Any allegations pertaining to the representation afforded by counsel at trial  should have been raised by petitioner in his Rule 36.4 petition for postconviction relief.  Petitioner’s assertion that the attorney who represented him in his postconviction proceeding  was ineffective is also not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.  Moreover, even if a coram nobis  proceeding were the proper forum to address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, there is no  right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding and thus no right to effective assistance of counsel  in such a proceeding.  See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987); see also Dyer v. State, 258  Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975).  Petition denied. 2 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.