Green v. State, 453 S.W.3d 677

James Edward Green pleaded guilty (2008) to first-degree terroristic threatening, second-degree sexual assault, and a violation of a suspended imposition of sentence for an additional terroristic-threatening count; aggregate sentence 36 months in ADC.
In 2014 Green filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court challenging the 2008 convictions.
The trial court denied the coram-nobis petition on the ground that this Court had not granted permission to proceed in the trial court.
Green appealed the denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court and filed motions there seeking an extension to file his brief and to have the clerk file his tendered brief, alleging prison personnel interference.
The Supreme Court concluded Green could not prevail because (1) the petition was moot insofar as he had served the sentence for the challenged convictions and (2) procedural requirements for reinvesting the trial court’s jurisdiction were not met; the appeal was dismissed and the motions were denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the coram-nobis petition in the trial court was procedurally proper without this Court first reinvesting jurisdiction	Green proceeded in trial court without seeking reinvestment because he did not appeal the original judgment	State argued the court lacked authority unless this Court reinvested the trial court when transcripts had been filed in an appellate court	Court affirmed denial but on alternative ground; noted reinvestment is required where the transcript was filed in appellate court, though Green had not appealed the original judgment
Whether the petition is moot because Green served the sentence for the convictions challenged	Green sought a new trial/release via coram nobis despite the passage of time	State contended the petition was moot because the sentence on the challenged convictions had been served and the requested remedy (new trial) was unavailable	Court held the petition was moot because Green had served the term imposed for the convictions challenged, so coram-nobis relief was unavailable
Whether the appeal and Green’s filing motions should proceed despite alleged prison interference with mailing his brief	Green requested extension and filing assistance alleging interference by prison personnel	State opposed, asserting procedural deficiencies and lack of merit	Court dismissed the appeal as having no merit to proceed and thus found the motions moot

Nalls v. State, 445 S.W.3d 509 (Ark. 2014) (this Court may affirm a lower court if it reached the right result even for the wrong reason)