Oliver v. State, 2016 Ark. 78

Appellant Kelly Lamont Oliver pled guilty (negotiated plea) to attempted first-degree murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to an aggregate 780 months’ imprisonment.
In 2015 Oliver filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging his guilty plea was coerced and tied to mental disease/defect and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel (referencing a pending federal habeas claim).
Oliver claimed he was not receiving psychiatric medication, was mentally unstable, subject to others’ stronger will, and thus pleaded guilty while incompetent; he also alleged counsel misadvised him about a doctor’s qualifications.
Trial record included a signed Plea and Waiver form in which Oliver attested he had never been declared mentally incompetent, was not under the influence, and did not require psychiatric treatment; the court warned he could proceed to trial.
The trial court denied the coram nobis petition; Oliver appealed. The court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief and whether Oliver alleged a fact extrinsic to the record sufficient for coram nobis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is warranted for coerced plea/insanity at time of plea	Oliver: plea coerced because of mental disease/defect, lack of meds, fear, and courtroom hostility	State: Oliver failed to allege any fact extrinsic to the record proving incompetency; record shows waiver and court inquiries	Denied — no extrinsic facts shown; plea knowingly made and waiver valid
Whether ineffective-assistance claims are cognizable in coram nobis	Oliver: ineffective assistance caused invalid plea (referenced federal habeas)	State: ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram nobis and must be raised under Rule 37.1	Denied — ineffective-assistance is not a coram nobis ground
Whether counsel/other pressure rendered plea involuntary	Oliver: counsel’s “stronger will” and courtroom hostility overcame him	State: plea colloquy, waiver form, and opportunity to go to trial undermine involuntariness claim	Denied — facts that could have been raised at trial/postconviction, not new
Whether petitioner met burden to show a fundamental, extrinsic factual error	Oliver: alleged mental-health facts and an available doctor would show incompetency	State: petitioner must show information unknown at trial that would have prevented conviction; Oliver presented nothing new	Denied — petitioner did not meet burden; abuse of discretion not shown

State v. Larimore, 17 S.W.3d 87 (Ark. 2000) (coram nobis is an extraordinary, rarely granted remedy)
Nelson v. State, 431 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. 2014) (no abuse of discretion when coram-nobis claims are groundless)
White v. State, 460 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. 2015) (ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in coram-nobis)
Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (enumerating four categories for coram-nobis relief)
Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (petitioner bears burden to demonstrate extrinsic fundamental error)
Millsap v. State, 449 S.W.3d 701 (Ark. 2014) (application must fully disclose specific facts relied upon for coram-nobis)
Westerman v. State, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (requiring a fact extrinsic to the record that would have prevented judgment)
Beverage v. State, 458 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. 2015) (entering a plea can waive competency claims)
Noble v. State, 462 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2015) (burden on petitioner claiming insanity to overcome presumption of valid judgment)
Weekly v. State, 440 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. 2014) (examples of coercion recognized by court)

Outcome: Affirmed — the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Oliver's petition for writ of error coram nobis.