For clerical purposes, the instant pleading was assigned the same docket number as the
direct appeal of the judgment.
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 02-1284
JOHN D. MARTIN
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered June 7, 2007
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS [CIRCUIT
COURT OF POPE COUNTY, CR 2001-
157, HON. DENNIS CHARLES
Petitioner John D. Martin was found guilty by a jury of rape, first-degree violation of a minor,
and third-degree carnal abuse, and received an aggregate sentence of 168 months’ imprisonment in
the Arkansas Department of Correction. We affirmed. Martin v. State, 354 Ark. 289, 119 S.W.3d
504 (2003). Subsequently, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition and we affirmed. Martin v. State, CR 04-946 (Ark.
Nov. 10, 2005) (per curiam).
Now before us is petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial
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).
Here, petitioner alleges that the prosecutor withheld a transcription of the victim’s taped
interview by an investigator with the Arkansas State Police. He claims that the prosecutor’s actions
are in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and constitute a basis for a writ of error
A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than
its approval. Larimore v. State, 341 Ark. 397, 17 S.W.3d 87 (2000). We have held that a writ of
error coram nobis was ava