1 For clerical purposes, the instant petition was assigned the same docket number as the direct
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 96-428
STATE OF ARKANSAS
February 14, 2008
PRO SE PETITION AND AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT COURT
OF ASHLEY COUNTY, CR 93-18]
PETITION AND AMENDED
PETITION TREATED AS PETITION
TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN
THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER
A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS AND DENIED.
A jury found petitioner Larry Rayford guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment without parole. This court affirmed the judgment. Rayford v. State, 326 Ark. 656, 934
S.W.2d 496 (1996). Petitioner has previously sought postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P.
37.1, through error coram nobis proceedings and through a habeas corpus proceeding, without
success. See Rayford v. State, CR 07651 (Ark. Nov. 8, 2007) (per curiam); Rayford v. State, CR
041171 (Ark. June 23, 2005) (per curiam); Rayford v. State, CR 96428 (Ark. Mar. 4, 2004) (per
curiam); Rayford v. State, CR 981322 (Ark. May 18, 2000) (per curiam). Petitioner now brings a
pro se petition and amended petition in this court for writ of error coram nobis. 1 The amended
petition addresses the same issue as the first petition.
In those instances where the judgment of conviction was entered on a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, or the judgment of convictionwas not appealed, the petition for writ of error coramnobis
is filed directly in the trial court. Dansby v. State, 343 Ark. 635, 37 S.W.3d 599 (2001) (per curiam).
After a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, as was the case here, 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 coramnobis only after we grant permission. Id. We therefore treat petitioner’s petitions
as a petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court