Cite as 2009 Ark. 365 (unpublished) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 84-54 Opinion Delivered June 18, 2009 PRO SE MOTION FOR TIMOTHY ELLIS McDANIEL RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL Petitioner OF PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER A v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, CR 81-135] STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM This court affirmed petitioner Timothy Ellis McDaniel’s conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment. McDaniel v. State, 283 Ark. 352, 676 S.W.2d 732 (1984) (decision subsequent to remand for separate trials in McDaniel v. State, 278 Ark. 631, 648 S.W.2d 57 (1983)). Petitioner filed a petition in this court in which he requested permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis. 1 We denied the petition. McDaniel v. State, CR 84-54 (Ark. Apr. 23, 2009) (unpublished per curiam). Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision. 1 For clerical purposes, the petition was assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal. After a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a petition filed in this court for leave to proceed in the trial court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis only after we grant permission. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
Cite as 2009 Ark. 365 (unpublished) In his petition, petitioner asserted as a basis for reinvesting jurisdiction in the trial court that he was not given a psychiatric evaluation before trial. Petitioner now asserts that he was not competent when the crime was committed or during trial, that the trial court wrongly denied him a mental evaluation, that he was interrogated by police without being advised of his right to counsel, that a witness was improperly excluded from providing testimony, and that a case cited by the State in its response to his petition is distinguishable because he did not receive a competency evaluation. We denied the petition because petitioner based his claim for error coram nobis relief upon the fact that petitioner was provided no competency evaluation, which would not be a fact extrinsic to the record. For the writ to issue following the affirmance of a conviction, the petitioner must show a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (2008) (per curiam). A writ of error coram nobis is appropriate when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). In his motion, petitioner does not point to any fact or issue that was hidden or unknown at the time of trial. His allegation that he was not competent at trial is merely conclusory, without any factual basis, and does not demonstrate that there was any issue concerning petitioner’s competency that was hidden or unknown. Petitioner has not shown that his competency, or any of the new claims raised in his motion, was an issue that could 2
Cite as 2009 Ark. 365 (unpublished) not have been addressed at trial. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate any basis upon which to reconsider the denial of his petition, we deny the motion. Motion denied. Gunter, J., not participating. 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.