# Roberts v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · February 14, 2013 · 425 S.W.3d 771

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5115309

## Case

- **Full name:** Karl Douglas ROBERTS v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 14, 2013
- **Citations:** 425 S.W.3d 771; 2013 Ark. 56; 2013 Ark. LEXIS 67; 2013 WL 543892
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baker
- **Judges:** Baker, Corbin, Hart
- **Cited by:** 210 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5115309

## Opinion text

KAREN R. BAKER, Justice, concurring.
I concur with the majority’s decision to deny Roberts’s petitions in this case. I write separately because I reach the decision to deny Roberts’s petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a writ of error coram nobis by a different analysis. The majority states that our due diligence discussion in Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414 , 125 S.W.3d 153 (2003), is relevant to Roberts’s claim, and finds that “Roberts’s claims that he was not aware of his own tickets or his own salary are less than credible.” However, it is unnecessary to engage in this credibility analysis. Roberts’s counsel acknowledged that they were aware of the information concerning Roberts’s traffic tickets and salary no later than 2008. Yet, no petition was filed with this court for over four years. The four-year delay demonstrates sufficiently that he did not act with due diligence. Therefore, I too would deny the petitions.
HART, J. joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5115309. Public record. Not legal advice.