Davis v. State

Summary

The court denied Davis’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a writ of error coram nobis. It held that most of Davis’s claims concerned ineffective assistance, evidentiary and credibility issues, trial errors, due process, or prosecutorial misconduct, none of which are cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings. His mental-incompetence claim also failed because he identified no extrinsic evidence that was concealed or unknown at trial. The court further declined to treat coram-nobis proceedings as interchangeable with motions to recall the mandate.