With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". lost in the mist and fog of the ancient common law. Anderson v. Buchanan, 168 S.W.2d 48, 55 (Ky. 1943) (Sims, J., dissenting) (quotation omitted). ¶ 10. Nonetheless, some consistencies have emerged. As to viability of the remedy generally, most state courts recognize the writ “unless superseded or abolished by statute.” Sanders, 1882 WL 6389, at *5; see Yackle, supra, § 9, at 40 (“Most courts took the view that absent an express statement of intent to abolish the common law writ, coram nobis remained in place to be applied in cases where the new remedies did not reach.”). In those jurisdictions where courts have concluded that the writ was wholly abolished by PCR statutes, the holding is based on specific statutory language. See, e.g., State v. Blakesley, 2010 ME 19, ¶ 23, 989 A.2d 746 (<HOLDING>); Morris v. State, 918 So. 2d 807, 808 (Miss.

A: holding harringtons first pcr application was timely filed
B: holding that writ was explicitly abolished by statute
C: holding that coram nobis was abolished by pcr statute
D: holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute
C.