Markus v. State, 463 S.W.3d 675

Benjamin W. Markus pled guilty in 2013 to two counts of rape involving his daughter and step-daughter (ages four and six) and received an aggregate 360-month sentence.
In 2014 Markus filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging he was incompetent when he entered his guilty plea and that a competency hearing/evaluation should have been held.
The trial court denied the coram nobis petition; Markus appealed pro se, reiterating his incompetence claim and adding factual support in his appellate brief.
The appellate court limited its review to the allegations presented in the trial-court petition and applied the abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of coram nobis relief.
The record included a 2012 defense-requested psychiatric evaluation finding Markus depressed and with troubled history but explicitly concluding he understood the charges, could work with counsel, and was competent to proceed.
The court held Markus failed to allege an extrinsic, fundamental factual error (i.e., a fact unknown at the time of plea) necessary for coram nobis relief and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a competency hearing was required before Markus's guilty plea	Markus: he was incompetent when he pled and therefore plea invalid	State: record included a competency evaluation showing competence; no extrinsic fact alleged	Court: No—psychiatric report was in the record; Markus failed to show competency was an unknown, extrinsic fact
Whether coram nobis is available for incompetence claims when evaluation existed pre-plea	Markus: coram nobis appropriate because competence issue denied due process	State: coram nobis requires a previously unknown extrinsic fact; here the alleged fact was not extrinsic	Court: No—coram nobis applies only to fundamental, extrinsic errors; not met here
Whether petitioner exercised due diligence in raising incompetence	Markus: petitioner argued he lacked capacity and State should have requested pretrial evaluation	State: petitioner knew of psychiatric evidence and did not present new facts showing diligence	Court: No error—petitioner did not present new, previously unknown facts or show due diligence
Whether the petition pleaded sufficient specific facts for coram nobis	Markus: petition alleged incompetence but added factual detail on appeal	State: petition failed to fully disclose specific facts as required	Court: Petition insufficient—must disclose specific facts; denial affirmed

Feuget v. State, 454 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. 2015) (appellate review limited to claims presented to trial court)
Nelson v. State, 431 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for coram nobis denial is abuse of discretion)
Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (coram nobis is extraordinary and presumed to be denied; available only for fundamental errors)
Sanders v. State, 285 S.W.3d 630 (Ark. 2008) (petitioner bears burden to show a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record)
Larimore v. State, 938 S.W.2d 818 (Ark. 1997) (application for coram nobis must fully disclose specific facts relied upon)
Ridgeway v. State, 389 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1965) (pretrial mental-exam results known to the court cannot later support coram nobis relief)