Green v. State
453 S.W.3d 677
Ark.
2015
Check Treatment

James Edward GREEN, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-14-885

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 22, 2015

2015 Ark. 25

of the duties of his office. See . It has long been held that public policy demands such immunity for prosecutors and has permitted no diminution or erosion of this defense when the acts complained of are committed within the scope of the duties of the prosecuting attorney‘s office. In , the United States Supreme Court, distinguishing whether a prosecuting attorney was entitled to absolute immunity or qualified immunity, focused on what function the prosecuting attorney was engaged in at the time of the alleged wrong, and it drew a distinction between the prosecutor‘s role as an advocate and the role of an administrator or investigator. When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-505(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2011), the prosecuting attorney shall initiate forfeiture proceedings by filing a complaint with the circuit clerk of the county where the property was seized. Appellant alleges on appeal that the prosecuting attorney did not provide adequate notice of motions and pleadings filed in the foreclosure action, that he filed an untimely in rem complaint, and that the summons was defective. These allegations clearly involve the prosecuting attorney‘s role as the advocate for the State in seeking the foreclosure rather than as an administrator or investigator. Thus, the prosecuting attorney was entitled to absolute immunity from suit.

As appellant does not raise any argument for relief on appeal against the circuit clerk, he has abandoned any claim against her. Because both the circuit judge and the prosecuting attorney had absolute immunity from suit, the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Affirmed.

James Edward GREEN, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-14-885

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 22, 2015

2015 Ark. 25

James Edward Green, pro se appellant.

No response.

PER CURIAM.

In 2014, appellant James Edward Green filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court challenging a judgment entered in 2008 that reflected appellant‘s guilty pleas in three cases. Appellant entered his pleas to first-degree terroristic threatening, second-degree sexual assault, and having violated the terms of a suspended imposition of sentence on an additional count of first-degree terroristic threatening, and he received an aggregate sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The trial court denied the petition for the writ, and appellant lodged this appeal. He has now filed a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief and another motion in which he requests that this court direct its clerk to file his tendered brief on the basis that personnel at the prison have interfered with his ability to mail the brief in a timely manner. Because we dismiss the appeal, the motions are moot.

An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. . It is clear from the record that appellant cannot prevail.

Where a judgment of conviction was entered on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or where the judgment of conviction was not appealed, a petition for writ of error coram nobis is filed directly in the trial court. . The trial court denied the petition on the basis that this court had not granted permission for appellant to proceed in the trial court. A prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request that this court reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court because the filing of the transcript in an appellate court deprives the trial court of jurisdiction. . Appellant did not appeal the judgment at issue; nevertheless, we affirm the denial of the petition. This court can affirm the circuit court if it reached the right result albeit for the wrong reason. See .

Where a petitioner in a coram-nobis proceeding has served the sentence imposed in the criminal judgment, the petition is moot. . Appellant filed his petition more than six years after the judgment had been entered imposing the thirty-six-month sentence. The public records of the Department of Correction reflect that appellant is currently incarcerated on other charges. Where it is evident that a petitioner has served his term of incarceration for the conviction challenged, his claim is moot because the remedy that he seeks, a new trial, is not available even if the petition states cause for the writ. . Appellant could not demonstrate that he was entitled to the writ, and the trial court did not err in denying relief.

Appeal dismissed; motions moot.

Read the detailed case summary