Opinion
CA CR 07-684
Opinion Delivered January 20, 2011
Pro Se Petition to Reinvest Jurisdiction in the Trial Court to Consider a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and Pro Se Motion to Withdraw Petition and for Leave to Proceed with Judicial Review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court [Lafayette County Circuit Court, CR 2005-03], Motion to Withdraw Petition Denied; Petition Dismissed.
In 2006, petitioner Jimmy Edd Lee entered a plea of guilty in the Lafayette County Circuit Court to possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. He was sentenced to five years' probation, and a fine was imposed. In 2007, probation was revoked. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation order. Lee v. State, CACR 07-684 (Ark. App. Dec. 27, 2007) (unpublished).
Subsequently, petitioner timely filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010) that was denied. We affirmed. Lee v. State, 2010 Ark. 261 (per curiam).
Now before us is petitioner's request that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Also before us is petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition and to allow the "cause to proceed as Judicial Review" in the Pulaski County Circuit Court.
First, the motion to withdraw the petition and for leave to proceed with a judicial review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court is denied. It is not clear what remedy petitioner desires to pursue in circuit court by means of a Judicial Review or whether this court's permission to proceed is even necessary. As the relief petitioner is seeking is not clear, there is no ground to grant him leave to proceed.
With respect to the petition, the allegations in the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court are entirely concerned with the correctness of the judgment entered on the plea of guilty. The probation revocation is not challenged in the arguments raised to warrant issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. As the petition does not pertain to the revocation order affirmed by the court of appeals, the petition for writ of error coram nobis is properly addressed to the trial court. When a petitioner entered a plea of guilty and his or her coram nobis petition challenges the judgment of conviction entered on that plea, the petition must be filed directly in the trial court. See Webb v. State, 2009 Ark. 487 (per curiam); see also McJames v. State, 2010 Ark. 74, at 1 n. 1 (per curiam) Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606, at 1 n. 1 (per curiam). Inasmuch as it was not necessary for petitioner to obtain this court's leave before proceeding with his petition in the trial court, the petition is dismissed.
Motion to withdraw petition denied; petition dismissed.