{
  "id": 1906012,
  "name": "Kerm POWERS v. Winston BRYANT, Attorney General of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powers v. Bryant",
  "decision_date": "1992-06-08",
  "docket_number": "91-164",
  "first_page": "568",
  "last_page": "572",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "309 Ark. 568"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "832 S.W.2d 232"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "618 F.2d 1119",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1380462
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/618/1119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ark. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882822
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "665"
        },
        {
          "page": "790"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/303/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ark. 896",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725130
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/210/0896-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 Ark. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453366
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1940,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/200/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.W. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ark. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1346991
      ],
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/105/0005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 Ark. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722553
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/257/0644-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 6631,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.872,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8589986136733226e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8412619809108562
    },
    "sha256": "d646f2dba2e65ddfe0821bd56bd0be78af8a6ac3469538054c3defd3cae7f88a",
    "simhash": "1:79489a96e626a885",
    "word_count": 1079
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:54.665869+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Special Justice John C. Deacon joins in this opinion.",
      "Hays, J., and Special Chief Justice James A. McLarty, III, dissent.",
      "Holt, C.J., and Brown, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Kerm POWERS v. Winston BRYANT, Attorney General of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellant Kerm Powers appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus directing appellee Attorney General Winston Bryant to prosecute an action to remove Altus \u201cShorty\u201d Doshier from Doshier\u2019s office as mayor of Yellville, Arkansas. Appellant argues that Ark. Const, art. 5, \u00a7 9 prohibits Doshier from holding office because Doshier was convicted in 1932 of the crimes of burglary and grand larceny.\nOn August 17, 1932, Doshier pled guilty to the offenses' of burglary and grand larceny. Doshier was seventeen at the time, and served seventy-six days confinement in the Arkansas Boys\u2019 Industrial School. More than fifty years later, on May 1, 1984, Doshier filed a petition for writ of error in the circuit court of Marion County. The basis of Doshier\u2019s petition was his assertion that he was not informed of the right to counsel at the time he entered his guilty plea in 1932. On July 29,1985, the Honorable John Lineberger granted Doshier a writ of error coram nobis setting aside Doshier\u2019s 1932 convictions and declaring the 1932 convictions \u201cnull and void.\u201d Judge Lineberger further ordered the reinvestment of all Doshier\u2019s rights of which he was deprived or could have been deprived because of the 1932 felony conviction. Finally, Judge Lineberger ordered the sealing of the record containing the coram nobis proceedings.\nOn November 8, 1990, appellant Powers filed this petition for mandamus in Pulaski County Circuit Court. Powers alleged that Doshier\u2019s 1932 convictions rendered Doshier ineligible to hold public office under Ark. Const, art. 5, \u00a7 9. This constitutional provision prohibits convicted felons from \u201cholding any office or trust or profit in this state.\u201d The trial court denied Powers\u2019 petition on the basis that Powers petition constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the order entered by Judge Lineberger in the earlier coram nobis proceeding. We affirm.\nThe order entered by Judge Lineberger in the coram nobis proceeding explicitly declared Doshier\u2019s 1932 convictions \u201cnull and void.\u201d The order also contained language reinvesting Doshier with any rights of which he was deprived because of the convictions. Appellant Powers challenges Judge Lineberger\u2019s order and urges us to hold that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus because Judge Lineberger\u2019s order granting the writ of error coram nobis is a \u201cvoid\u201d order. According to appellant, Judge Lineberger\u2019s order is \u201cvoid\u201d because the order is contrary to the standard set out in Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975) for when the granting of a writ of error coram nobis is proper. Appellant argues that Judge Lineberger\u2019s action in granting the writ was \u201cso blatant as to be literally ultra vires.\u201d He further argues that the collateral attack rule should not prohibit us from reviewing Judge Lineberger\u2019s coram nobis order because a constitutional issue is at stake.\nWe disagree with appellant\u2019s assertion that the order entered by Judge Lineberger is a void order. When a judgment contains some defect which may become fatal and render it invalid, then it is only voidable, and until it is actually annulled, it has all the force and effect of a perfectly valid judgment. McDaniel v. Fort Smith & W. R.R. Co., 105 Ark. 5, 150 S.W. 135 (1912). Absent allegations of fraud or lack of jurisdiction, a judgment entered by a circuit court bears presumptive verity and may not be questioned by collateral attack. Adams v. Van Buren County, 200 Ark. 269, 139 S.W.2d 9 (1940). If the action or proceeding has an independent purpose and contemplates some other relief or result, although the overturning of the judgment may be important or even necessary to its success, then the proceeding is a collateral attack, which will be successful only upon showing a lack of power. Pinkston v. Schuman, 210 Ark. 896, 198 S.W.2d 66 (1946).\nIn this case, appellant\u2019s petition for a writ of mandamus depends largely on the overturning or impeachment of the order entered by Judge Lineberger in the coram nobis proceeding. However, the alleged defect in the coram nobis proceeding involves a question of law which could have been raised by the state on an appeal of that proceeding. As appellant does not allege either fraud or lack of jurisdiction in his collateral attack on the coram nobis proceeding, we reject his voidness argument and will presume that the writ of error coram nobis was properly granted. The question then becomes whether Ark. Const, art. 5, \u00a7 9 prohibits a citizen with a \u201cnull and void\u201d expunged felony conviction from holding public office in this state.\nAppellant argues that the mere \u201cfact\u201d of a prior conviction, regardless of whether the conviction has been expunged or voided, renders a citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold public office under art. 5, \u00a7 9. Appellant cites no authority to support his rigid constitutional interpretation, and we reject this argument based on the reasoning recently set out in Tyler v. Shackleford, 303 Ark. 662, 799 S.W.2d 789 (1990). In the Tyler case, we discussed the legal effect of expunction under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, and relied on decisions of the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding the expungement under the federal act actually removed the fact of a conviction. We adopted the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in holding that following a discharge under the federal act, \u201cthe disabilities of a criminal conviction are completely and automatically removed; indeed, the conviction is set aside as if it had never been.\u201d Id. at 665, 799 S.W.2d at 790, quoting United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1980).\nWhile appellant attempts to distinguish Tyler by pointing out that the Tyler case dealt with the effect of expunction under a federal law, we find the distinction irrelevant for purposes of this case. Judge Lineberer\u2019s order granting the writ of error coram nobis clearly stated that Doshier\u2019s 1932 convictions were \u201cnull and void.\u201d As Judge Lineberger\u2019s order manifested an intent to set aside Doshier\u2019s conviction as if it had never occurred, we find no constitutional violation in Doshier\u2019s holding of public office.\nAccordingly, we affirm the denial of appellant\u2019s petition.\nSpecial Justice John C. Deacon joins in this opinion.\nHays, J., and Special Chief Justice James A. McLarty, III, dissent.\nHolt, C.J., and Brown, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Griffin Smith, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeanette L. Hamilton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kerm POWERS v. Winston BRYANT, Attorney General of Arkansas\n91-164\n832 S.W.2d 232\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 8, 1992\nGriffin Smith, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeanette L. Hamilton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0568-01",
  "first_page_order": 594,
  "last_page_order": 598
}