that the use of a coerced confession to obtain a judgment is tantamount to a coerced guilty plea, and, thus, the issue is within the purview of a coram-nobis proceeding. There is no merit to Dodge’s argument. The allegation is not cognizable as a ground for coram-nobis relief. Even if the issue of whether Dodge’s statement to police should have been suppressed had not been raised at his trial and addressed on direct appeal, the claim amounts to an argument of trial error. Assertions of trial error are outside the scope of a coram-nobis proceeding. Lukach v. State, 2014 Ark. 451, 2014 WL 5493961 (per curiam). Moreover, coram-nobis proceedings do not provide a petitioner with a forum to relitigate trial or appeal issues. See Watts v. State, 2013 Ark. 485, 2013 WL 6157325 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Dodge makes a con-clusory reference
holding that this 14 court does not consider in a coramnobis action allegations that are an attempt to reargue issues addressed on appeal holding that subject to limited exceptions this court will not consider issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal holding that the general rule that issues not raised in the lower court may not be addressed on appeal applies only to appellants holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned holding that issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal