Lead Opinion
| Appellant Bobby Charles Nelson appeals from the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
The instаnt record reflects that on June 20, 1972, Nelson pled guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On April 9, 2012, Nelson, through counsel, filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which asserted two bases for relief: (1) that his guilty plea was the product of coercion and was not knowingly, intelligently, or |2voluntarily entered; and (2) that his guilty plea was further involuntary due to his counsel’s operating under a conflict of interest by simultaneously representing him and a co-defendant who had competing interests. The circuit court denied Nelson’s petition and found, in pertinent part:
[T]he defendant’s contention that his plea had been coerced by the threat of the death penalty was rejected by this Court in the Findings of Fact entered on July 23, 1974. Lastly, any allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been raised in the defendant’s Criminal Procedure Rule 1 petition. The defendant’s final two grounds for relief are also cognizable pursuant to Rule 37, then Rule 1, and should have been raised in the petition filеd April 5, 1974.
The issues raised in the instant petition can be conclusively decided from the files and records of the case, and an evidentiary hearing is not required.[2 ]
It is from this order that Nelson now appeals.
On appeal, Nelson argues that he was entitled to a writ of error coram nobis. He asserts that his trial counsel operated under a conflict of interest that arose whеn his trial counsel obtained a plea bargain with the State for his codefendant by which the codefendant would testify against Nelson in exchange for a lesser sentence. He maintains that because of that conflict, his trial counsel had to convince him to plead guilty and accept a life sentence | ¡¡since his trial counsel would not have been able to effectively cross-examine his codefendant. Nelson additionally contends that his trial counsel misrepresented his parole eligibility to him to further coerce him into pleading guilty. Finally, he urges that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his petition without a hearing. The State counters, asserting that Nelson’s claims are allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that are not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings and should have been raised in his previous postconviction proceedings. It further as-serfs that Nelson has not shown due diligence in bringing his petition. We agree with the State that Nelson’s claims arе ones not cognizable in a proceeding for error coram nobis; therefore, no hearing was required on his petition.
Error coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. See Howard v. State,
The standard of review for the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is ^whether the circuit court abused its discretion in granting or denying the writ. See Newman v. State,
Our review of Nelson’s petition reveals no claim that he is “innocent or that his plea was coerced in the sense that it was the result of fear, duress, or threats of mob violence as previously recognized by this court as cognizable in coram nobis relief.” Wright v. State,
While Nelson attempts to couch his claims in terms of a coerced-guilty plea, it simply does not alter the fact that the actual basis for his claims is ineffective assistance of counsel. In his petition, Nelson contended that his “[tjrial counsel coerced [him] into pleading guilty ... by (1) exploiting his fear of being sentenced to death and (2) assuring him that he would only serve twenty-one years of a life sentence, both of which are unfounded.” He further asserted that his counsel operated under a conflict of interest whilе defending him, such that he was deprived of due process. But, merely because Nelson asserts that his claims involve a coerced guilty plea does not require this court to treat them as such. Instead, this court routinely looks to the true nature of a petitioner’s claim, rather than how a petitioner couches the claim. Seе, e.g., Morgan,
Moreover, we have repeatedly held that allegations made in support of error coram nobis relief that are premised on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not cognizable in error coram nobis proceedings. See, e.g., McClure v. State,
It is clear to this court that Nelson’s claims are actually predicated on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel; however, it has been well established by this court that such allegations are simply not cognizable in a proceeding for error coram nobis. Because Nelson’s petition did not state a cognizable claim for relief, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelson’s petition or in deciding the matter without a hearing.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Normally, an appellant must first seek permission in this court to proceed in the circuit court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. See, e.g., McJames v. State,
. The circuit court delineated Nelson’s grounds for the writ as follows:
1. His pleа was coerced by the threat of the death penalty, which according to defendant’s petition had been declared unconstitutional in 1971 by the Supreme Court of the United States and therefore his attorney was ineffective by advising him that the death penalty was a possible sentence.
2. His plea was induced by his attorney’s assuranсe that he would only serve twenty-one years of a life sentence, which was contrary to law and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. His attorney had a conflict of interest in that he also represented a codefendant who accepted a plea bargain to a lesser offense in exchаnge for his testimony against the defendant.
. Although there is no specific time limit for seeking a writ of error coram nobis, due diligence is required in making an application for relief. See Newman v. State,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion because Nelson’s petition for writ of error coram nobis should be reversed and remanded for a hearing.
IvNelson’s guilty plea to first-degree murder and sentence to life imprisonment stem from the February 5, 1972 death of Raymond Tuck. Nelson and three other men, Robert Hill, Jr., Clarence Perry, and Chester Perry, were involved in a fight with Tuck, used their fists to beat Tuck, and then beat Tuck with a fence board. Tuck died as a result of his injuries. Hill, Clarence Perry, and Chester Perry each pleaded guilty to accessory to murder and each was sentenced to a term of ten years’ imprisonment. Each also agreed to testify against Nelson.
At the time of Nelson’s plea agreement, Nelson had retained and was represented by Attorney Gene Worsham. After Nelson retained Worsham, Worsham accepted an appointment from the circuit court to represent Nelson’s codefendant, Hill. Nelson contends that Worsham secured a 10-year plea agreement for Hill in exchange for Hill’s agreement to testify against Nelson at trial. Nelson allegеs that Hill advised Worsham that Nelson was the principal actor in Tuck’s murder. Nelson, on the other hand, advised Worsham that Hill was the principal actor in Tuck’s murder. Based on this conflict, Nelson contends that Worsham misrepresented Nelson’s sentence and parole eligibility to him, and coerced Nelson to enter into his plea agreement by asserting that Nelson would be given the death penalty at trial based on Hill’s testimony. Nelson asserts, however, that at the time of his plea, Nelson was not privy to Worsham’s representation of Hill. Nelson further asserts that Hill worked as a carpenter for Worsham for several years, and Hill’s father also worked for Worsham at the time thе two men entered into their respective plea agreements.
The majority affirms the circuit court’s holding that Nelson’s claim is not a cognizable Isdaim for a writ of error coram nobis. The majority characterizes Nelson’s assertion of coercion as a simple claim of conflict of interest and a classic claim оf ineffective assistance of counsel. However, Nelson’s allegations are much more serious than recognized by the majority. Nelson’s allegation of a coerced guilty plea hinges on Nelson’s reliance on his own counsel’s advice, when the purpose of that advice was to assist a codefendant also represented by Worsham, while obliging Nelson to plead guilty, all to Nelson’s detriment. These circumstances may well evidence Nelson was under duress when he pleaded guilty.
In Holloway v. Arkansas,
[j]oint representation of conflicting interests is suspect because of what it tеnds to prevent the attorney from doing. ... Generally speaking, a conflict may also prevent an attorney from challenging the admission of evidence prejudicial to one client but perhaps favorable to another, or from arguing at the sentencing hearing the relative involvement and culpability of his clients in order to minimize the culpability of one by emphasizing that of another. Examples can be readily multiplied. The mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate’s conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters.
Further, “counsel’s allegiance to а client must remain unaffected by competing obligations to other clients, and an actual conflict of interest renders judicial proceedings fundamentally unfair. United States v. Alvarez,
The majority states, citing Wright v, State,
Although the majority cites to Wright, Wright did not allege that his plea was the product of fear, duress, or mob violence. Wright in turn cites to Hardwick v. State,
In applying our case law here, Nelson has alleged a conflict of interest that was unknown to him when he pleaded guilty; a conflict that significantly benefited his co-defendant and coerced Nelson to plead guilty to his detriment. At a minimum, Nelson’s petition commands a hearing and cannot be denied based on the record before the court. We have explained that “a heаring is not required if the petition clearly has no merit ... in that it fails to state a cause of action to support issuance of the writ.” Deaton v. State,
Therefore, I would remand Nelson’s petition to the circuit court so that it may conduct an evidentiary hearing, consider Nelson’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, and issue an order containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
HART and HOOFMAN, JJ., join in this dissent.