Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07078/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL~ .. J 

United States Co~rl ~f Appe1.1P UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JAMES C. LUMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT DEC 1 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7078 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-610-S ) 

( E . D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant James C. Luman appeals the district court's denial 

of his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which Defendant 

seeks to set aside his 1971 convictions and sentences. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

In 1971, Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of concealing a 

stolen motor vehicle which had moved in interstate commerce 

(offense 27895), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313, and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3 . 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed . R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 1 
transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce 

(offense 279 06 ) , in violation of 18 U.S . C. § 2312 . The latter 

charge was the product of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 20 transfer from the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri 

to the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. 

Defendant was sentenced to and served terms of two years 

imprisonment for each offense. Defendant now seeks relief 

asserting that his 1971 pleas have led to an enhanced sentence of 

64 years imprisonment for a 1990 attempted grand larceny 

conviction under an Oklahoma recidivist statute. 

Defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in 

the district court, claiming that his convictions and sentences 

were invalid because: (1) the sentencing court, in accepting his 

guilty plea, did not strictly comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and 

(2) his pleas of guilty were not voluntary and knowing. The 

district court below, adopting the magistrate's findings and 

recommendations, denied Defendant's petition finding that the 

sentencing court strictly followed the provisions of Rule 11, and 

that the record clearly indicates that Defendant's plea was made 

with an understanding of the nature of the charges and 

consequences of his plea. 

"When habeas corpus is an inadequate remedy, a criminal 

conviction may be attacked by means of the common law writ of 

error coram nobis." Carter v. Attorney General of United States, 

782 F.2d 138 , 141 (10th Cir. 1986). However, a writ of coram 

n obis is an extraordinary means of relief available "only under 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 2 
circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice." United 

States v. Mo rgan, 346 U.S . 502, 511 (1954 ) . The writ is 

appropriate only where the alleged error is jurisdictional o r 

constitutional. Klein v . United States, 880 F.2d 25 0 , 253 (10 th 

Cir. 1989). 11 [A]bsent a complete miscarriage of 

justice, . society's interest in finality would not be served 

by granting the relief requested." United States v. Williamson, 

806 F.2d 216, 222 {10th Cir. 1986). 

We first dispose of Defendant's claim that t he sentencing 

court failed to strictly comply with Fed. R. Crim. P . 11 . Stric t 

c ompliance with Rule 11 is not constitutionally mandated. 

McCarthy v . United States, 394 U. S . 459, 465 (1968 ) . Therefore, 

Defendant's claim that the sentencing court failed to comply with 

Rule 11 does not raise a constitutional issue, and may not be 

addressed via the writ of error coram nobis. 

As to Defendant's second claim, a guilty plea may be 

involuntary in the constitutional sense if the defendant "has such 

an incompl ete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot 

stand as an intelligent admission of guilt." Henderson v. Mo rgan, 

426 U. S. 637, 645 n.13 (1976 ) . See also Boykin v. Alabama, 395 

U.S. 238, 243 (1968) . Therefore, Defendant's claim that his pleas 

were not voluntary and knowing raises a constitutional issue, and, 

as such, may be raised i n the writ of error coram nobis. 

When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense, our initial 

inquiry is whether the reco rd affirmatively shows that the 

defe ndant v oluntarily and knowingly entered his plea o f guilty . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 3 
See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244. In determining whether the record 

adequately does this, we look to the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding the plea, taking into account such factors such as: 

the complexity of the offense, the characteristics of the 

defendant, and whether the defendant was represented by counsel. 

See United States v. Cusenza, 749 F.2d 473, 475 (7th Cir. 1984 ) 

(defendant's understanding of charge established by totality of 

circumstances). Moreover, when a defendant collaterally attacks a 

final conviction, we presume that the proceedings leading to the 

conviction were correct. Parke v. Raley, No. 91-719, 1992 WL 

347976, at *6 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1992). 

Offense 27906 charged Defendant with transporting a stolen 

motor vehicle in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2312. Defendant now claims that this offense was only referred 

to as a "Dyer Act" violation, and he had no idea what a Dyer Act 

violation was. Offense 27895 charged Defendant with concealing a 

stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. Defendant 

now claims that he did not realize that offense 27906 involved his 

sister's vehicle, a 1968 Chevrolet Impala. Defendant contends 

that he mistakenly thought offense 27895 charged him with 

concealing the same vehicle (1970 Dodge) that he was charged with 

transporting in offense 27906. Defendant now says he never would 

have pleaded guilty to offense 27895 had he known it involved his 

sister's vehicle in which, he now alleges, he had a possessory 

interest. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 4 
In reviewing the transcripts of the Rule 11 and sentencing 

hearings, we first note that the court failed to inquire of the 

Defendant whether he understood the nature of both offenses. The 

transcripts do reveal, however, that Defendant and his counsel, 

who were present at both h~arings, received the informations for 

both charges, and counsel had discussed the informations with 

Defendant prior to his pleading . The informations fully recite 

the elements of each offense and identify the vehicles involved in 

each offense. Defendant does not dispute that he received the 

informations, nor that his counsel explained their contents to 

him. Additionally, Defendant's signature is affixed to the waiver 

of indictments for both offenses, and both waivers clearly recite 

the elements of the offenses and the vehicles involved in each. 

The elements of offense 27895 are also recited by Defendant's 

counsel, on the record, prior to Defendant's plea to offense 

27895, Tr. of March 26, 1971 Hr'g at 5, and Defendant's counsel 

refers to offense 27895, at the sentencing hearing, as "a family 

affair." Tr. of Apr. 16, 1971 Hr'g at 2. 

Further, the record must be reviewed in light of the fact 

that Defendant was represented by counsel, the offenses were not 

so complex that a lay person of average intelligence could not 

understand them, and Defendant was not new to the criminal justice 

system, having been charged with eight offenses prior to March of 

1971. Viewing the circumstances in their totality, we hold that 

the record affirmatively shows that Defendant's guilty pleas were 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 5 
voluntary and knowing . 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Entered f or the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7078 Document: 010110152136 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 6