Legal Opinion · Dissent

Noble v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 9, 2015No. CR-93-427Published

1DissentKaren R. Baker, Justice

Because this court never obtained jurisdiction over Noble’s direct appeal, Noble does not need to petition this court to reinvest jurisdiction with the trial court in order to pursue a writ of error coram nobis. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that Noble must ask this court to reinvest jurisdiction before pursuing error coram nobis relief in the trial court.

The majority correctly states the rule that a prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by means of a petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request that this court…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Green v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  2. Dansby v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  3. Bilderback v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  4. State v. HudspethSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
  5. Fletcher v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

6 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