For clerical purposes, the instant petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider
a petition for writ of error coram nobis was assigned the same docket number as the direct appeal
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CACR 01-106
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered November 16, 2006
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER
COUNTY, CR 99-527]
In 2000, a jury found petitioner John Ragsdale guilty of possession of methamphetamine with
intent to deliver and sentenced him to 480 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Ragsdale v. State, CACR 01-
106 (Ark. App. Sept. 5, 2001). Petitioner timely filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction
relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. This court affirmed. Ragsdale v. State, CR
01-1399 (Ark. May 23, 2002) (per curiam). Petitioner next sought an original action in this court
pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60. We declined petitioner’s invitation to create a new postconviction
remedy. Ragsdale v. State, CR 06-532 (Ark. June 22, 2006) (per curiam).
Proceeding pro se, petitioner now requests this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition for leave to proceed in the trial
of the judgment.
court is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after
a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark.
635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of
conviction is valid. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing Troglin v. State, 257
Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). A writ of error coram