Criminal procedure.

• Author: Tarab, Melissa L.
• Position: Writ of error coram nobis

In-Custody Requirement of Relief Under the Writ of Error Coram Nobis--Trenkler v. United States, 536 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008)

Under the All Writs Act of the United States Code, federal courts have the power to entertain an array of common-law writs. (1) In certain narrow circumstances, the rare writ of error coram nobis is a remedial petition primarily available to criminal defendants who want to challenge their convictions. (2) When pursuing this remedy, the petitioner must meet the writ's strict requirements for the original court to grant a hearing. (3) In Trenkler v. United States, (4) the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts properly granted the petitioner's writ of coram nobis. (5) Judge Selya, writing for a unanimous court, reversed the grant citing that the petitioner failed to meet the writ's strict requirements. (6)

On November 29, 1993, a jury convicted petitioner Alfred Trenkler of, among other charges, illegal receipt and use of explosives, and the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. (7) The controlling statute included life imprisonment as an available sentence under section 34, "if the jury shall in its discretion so direct." (8) Even though the jury did not make such a directive and the judge therefore lacked authority to issue this sentence, no party remarked on the deficiency. (9)

On November 6, 2006, Trenkler wrote to the original trial judge arguing for reconsideration under a writ of error coram nobis. (10) Trenkler requested a correction of the unauthorized imposition of his life sentence. (11) The district court judge found a lack of any other remedy through which to challenge the conviction, a fundamental error of law, an inability of Trenkler to seek earlier relief, and a continuance of collateral consequences; the trial judge thereby granted the writ and resentenced Trenkler to a term of years. (12) The government appealed the grant of the writ, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue it. (13)

On appeal, the First Circuit re-categorized Trenkler's writ of coram nobis as a second attempt at a habeas corpus petition applying section 2255 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). (14) The court held that the "strictures of section 2255" may not be "sidestepped" by the resort to a writ. (15) The court explained that if a criminal defendant's petition still fulfills the section 2255 requirements for habeas corpus relief, then that statute is the appropriate source of assistance. (16) In that sense, the All Writs Act is a "residual source of authority to issue writs ... not otherwise covered by statute." (17) Consequently, the appeals court reversed the district court's grant of the writ, ruling Trenkler's filing embodied a second attempt at a habeas corpus petition barred by section 2255's gatekeeping provisions. (18)

The writ of error coram nobis is an ancient common-law writ. (19) Despite its complex history of application to criminal procedure, the United States Supreme Court has held it is available to criminal defendants. (20) The rendering court reserves the writ as a means to correct errors "of the most fundamental character." (21) Case law has established that to qualify for coram nobis relief the error must be all of the following: outside the record; unknown to the defendant at the time of trial; unlitigated at trial; unknown to the trial court; and, if known, preventative of judgment. (22) Some courts require that the defendant no longer be in custody to employ the writ, although some case law challenges this requirement. (23)

Coram nobis operates as an extraordinary remedy available only when the defendant has no other means of assistance. (24) Its use must be deferred until the petitioner exhausts possible statutory habeas corpus relief codified in section 2255. (25) Moreover, if section 2255 had been available for the defendant's post-conviction petition, the defendant may not then file a successive section 2255 disguised as a coram nobis plea. (26) In 1996, Congress enacted AEDPA, which included new strict gatekeeping provisions regulating section 2255 habeas corpus. (27) As a result, the court must review the petition, despite the motion's name, to determine if it runs afoul of AEDPA. (28)

AEDPA added a "savings clause" to section 2255 which allows a second habeas corpus petition only if the petitioner establishes one of two exceptions: the existence of newly discovered evidence that, if proven, would establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the defendant guilty, or a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable to the defendant and made retroactively available by the Supreme Court. (29) Courts have gone so far as to hold that a claim's failure merely to meet one of the savings clause exceptions under section 2255 does not alone create a miscarriage of justice worthy of coram nobis relief. (30) Conversely, the Supreme Court has also held that section 2255 does not preempt other forms of relief authorized under the All Writs Act. (31)

In Trenkler v. United States, the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts's grant of the petitioner's coram nobis petition after categorizing the motion as a successive section 2255 appeal. (32)...