Opinion
No. CR-13-1006
04-18-2019
ROLANDIS CHATMON PETITIONER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT
PRO SE FOURTH PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
[FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 23CR-12-571] PETITION DENIED.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice
Petitioner Rolandis Chatmon brings this petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, or, in the alterative, for writ of certiorari. It is the fourth such petition filed by Chatmon in this court. Because Chatmon has not established a ground on which a writ of error coram nobis or a writ of certiorari should issue, the petition is denied.
I. Error Coram Nobis Proceedings
Chatmon's petition for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the trial court cannot entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal unless this court grants permission. Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. 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. Id. 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 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 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.
In making the determination of whether the writ should issue, this court looks to the reasonableness of the allegations in the petition and to the existence of the probability of the truth thereof. Id. 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. Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374.
II. Background
In 2013, Chatmon was found guilty by a jury of three counts of aggravated robbery and theft of property. He was sentenced, with a firearm enhancement, as a habitual offender to three terms of life imprisonment plus 360 months' imprisonment. This court affirmed. Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731.
In 2015, Chatmon filed in this court his first coram nobis petition in which he alleged, among other allegations, that the presiding judge at his trial, Michael Maggio, was corrupt and biased. The petition was denied. Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 417, 473 S.W.3d 542 (per curiam). Chatmon filed a second petition in 2016 in which he again advanced the same claim of judicial bias with added allegations based on information that he contended was brought to light in the suspension and removal proceedings by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission pertaining to Maggio, including the claim that Maggio was biased against Chatmon because of Chatmon's race. This court held that Chatmon had not established a basis for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis in his first petition and that his reassertion of the same allegations in the second petition, even with expanded claims of bias, did not show that there was reasonable probability of a different outcome of Chatmon's trial had a different judge presided. This court further held that the second petition constituted an abuse of the writ. Chatmon v. State, 2016 Ark. 236, 492 S.W.3d 867
In Chatmon's third petition filed in 2017, he reiterated allegations contained in his first petition that the State had concealed evidence from his defense at trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This court again held that Chatmon had provided no proof that the State violated Brady and noted that the third petition "bordered" on constituting an abuse of the writ because it alleged grounds already considered by this court without additional facts sufficient to provide grounds for the writ. Chatmon v. State, 2017 Ark. 229, at 5.
Fourth Petition
In this fourth petition, Chatmon claims that Maggio was corrupt in that he presided over Chatmon's trial while in violation of Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 29, section 2. Section 2 provides that a person who is appointed to a vacancy in a division of a circuit court under Amendment 29, section 1, cannot be elected to succeed him or herself to that division. Chatmon alleges that Maggio was appointed to a vacancy in Second Division of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit and later elected to a judgeship in that same division. He contends that the State wrongfully withheld this fact from the defense and thus a writ of coram nobis should issue. The assertion is without merit.
The Administrative Plan from 2001 reflects that Judge Maggio was appointed to serve in Division 4 in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. He was subsequently elected to serve in Division 2. This court has held that "a person who runs as a candidate for circuit judge in a division of a judicial circuit, who was appointed in the previous term to serve out a vacancy in another division of the same judicial circuit, is not succeeding himself or herself in violation of Amendment 29, section 2, if elected." Brewer v. Fergus, 348 Ark. 577, 584, 79 S.W.3d 831, 835 (2002); see also Daniels v. Dennis, 365 Ark. 338, 229 S.W.3d 880 (2006) (holding that Amendment 29 prevents a person from succeeding himself or herself only with respect to the specific position to which he or she was appointed).
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
As to Chatmon's plea that a writ of certiorari be issued as an alternative to granting leave for him to proceed with a coram nobis petition in the trial court, there are two requirements that must be satisfied in order for this court to grant a writ of certiorari. Chatmon, 2016 Ark. 236, 492 S.W.3d 867. The first requirement for a writ of certiorari is that there can be no other adequate remedy but for the writ of certiorari. Id. Second, a writ of certiorari lies only where (1) it is apparent on the face of the record that there has been a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion, or (2) there is a lack of jurisdiction, an act in excess of jurisdiction on the face of the record, or the proceedings are erroneous on the face of the record. Id. Certiorari is not to be used to look beyond the face of the record to ascertain the actual merits of a controversy, to control discretion, to review a finding upon facts, or to review the exercise of a court's discretionary authority. Id. Allegations of conduct that give rise to an appearance of impropriety but that fail to show either a conflict of interest or actual bias are insufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge acted illegally or in excess of his or her jurisdiction such that the superintending authority of this court may be invoked through a writ of certiorari. See Weaver v. Simes, 365 Ark. 289, 229 S.W.3d 15 (2006). Chatmon did not demonstrate in this latest petition cause for finding that the trial judge acted illegally or in excess of his jurisdiction.
Petition denied.
WOOD, J., not participating.