Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larimore v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 10, 1997No. CR 96-219Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTom Glaze, Justice

The majority correctly denies Larimore’s request for Rule 37 relief as untimely; however, it then mistakenly reverses the trial court and grants Larimore leave to request a writ of error coram nobis. Arkansas law clearly reflects that a convicted defendant’s request for error coram nobis relief can only be granted after the trial court has lost jurisdiction and before this court has affirmed the defendant’s case on appeal. Edgemon v. State, 292 Ark. 465, 730 S.W.2d 898 (1987) (modified on another point by Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 374, 784 S.W.2d 595 (1990)); Stone v. State, 290 Ark. 203, 718…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Case v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Penn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  3. Larimore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
  4. Troglin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
  5. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API