87 (2000). Roberts now cites to the Cloird opinion for the proposition that it is the circuit court, not this court, who considers the diligence issue in the first instance. While it is true that we have directed circuit courts to examine the issue of diligence, we have done so only in those cases where we have granted the petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court. This court has itself examined the diligence requirement and denied petitions where it was evident that a petitioner failed to proceed diligently. See, e.g., Echols, 354 Ark. 414, 125 S.W.3d 153. Even though it was a death-penalty case, this court denied his petition for coram nobis relief where we determined that he had not acted diligently. See also Scott v. State, 2010 Ark. 363, 2010 WL 3796227 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we will address the issue of whether
holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner holding that a coram nobis petition remained pending until  the court of appeals denied petitioners application for leave to appeal the appellate divisions denial of his petition holding same for writ of error coram nobis holding that in the absence of a valid excuse for delay a coram nobis petition is subject to denial recognizing that under the common law applications for writs of error coram nobis were civil in character