Brian Keith BIGGS, Petitioner v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent.
No. CR-15-501
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Opinion Delivered March 17, 2016
2016 Ark. 125
PER CURIAM
Appellant Brian Keith Biggs pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in the Saline County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment as reflected in the judgment-and-commitment order file-marked on May 27, 2010. On March 9, 2015, Biggs filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition was denied, and Biggs brings this appeal.
The standard of review of an order entered by the trial court on a petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ. Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7, at 13-14, 2014 WL 197789. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Nelson v. State, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852. The trial court’s findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Newman, 2014 Ark. 7, at 13-14, 2014 WL 197789. There is no abuse of discretion in the denial of error-coram-nobis relief when the claims in the petition were groundless. Nelson, 2014 Ark. 91, 431 S.W.3d 852.
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy. State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). Coram-nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. Id. The function of the writ is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact that would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of the judgment. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771.
The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Id. A writ of error coram nobis is available for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38.
On appeal, Biggs contends that his trial counsel coerced him into a guilty plea because counsel was “indifferent, incompetent, and ineffective.” Specifically, Biggs claims that he agreed to a plea offer on the charge of aggravated robbery believing he would serve 70 percent of the 300 months’ imprisonment but that his counsel essentially withheld from the trial court the fact that he would serve more than 70 percent of his sentence pursuant to Act 1805 of 2001, codified at
While Biggs attempts to couch his claim in terms of a coerced-guilty plea, which would provide a basis for relief in a coram-nobis proceeding, the actual basis for his claim on appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel with the underlying argument
Even had Biggs argued his coerced-guilty-plea claim below, he makes no allegation that anyone other than his own trial counsel misadvised him. See Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. 83, at 3-4, 456 S.W.3d 371, 373-74 (per curiam) (no claims made by appellant that the prosecution or trial court were aware of his prior conviction or that statements were made that he was eligible for parole). Erroneous advice concerning parole eligibility does not automatically render a guilty plea involuntary nor does it support a claim of a coerced plea, providing a basis for coram-nobis relief. See Morgan v. State, 2013 Ark. 341, at 7, 2013 WL 5306051 (per curiam) (citing State v. Tejada-Acosta, 2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673). Moreover, the facts concerning any statutes applicable to Biggs’s potential parole eligibility were public record and not a withheld or hidden fact. See, e.g., Wright, 2015 Ark. 83, at 4, 456 S.W.3d at 373. Claims regarding parole-eligibility status do not demonstrate that there was some fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record and do not fit within one of the four categories for coram-nobis relief. Id. “We have also held that the Arkansas Department of Correction’s calculation of a petitioner’s parole-eligibility date is not a ground for granting a writ of error coram nobis.” Id. (citing Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 228, 2012 WL 1877350 (per curiam)). As there was no fact extrinsic to the record cited by Biggs that could not have been known at the time that his guilty plea was entered, he did not state a ground for the writ, and the trial court properly denied error-coram-nobis relief.
Affirmed.