Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03180/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald W. Dawes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FEB 

·v. 

') 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 89-3180, 89-3181 

89-3205 and 89-3206 

DONALD W. DAWES and PHYLLIS C. 

DAWES, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. Nos. 88-10002-01 and 88-10002-02) 

SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS:* 

Benjamin L. Burgess, Jr., United States Attorney, and. Stephen K. 

Lester, Assistant United States Attorney, Wichita, Kansas, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Bissessarnath Ramcharan-Maharajh, Topeka, Kansas, for DefendantsAppellants. 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

We have combined the above numbered appeals of the Daweses. 

* After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-3180 Document: 010110159011 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 1 
Defendants seek review of the district court's denial of 

their motions for new trial filed July 17 and 24, 1989. 

Defendants' primary argument is that they were denied their 

constitutional right to counsel at their trial on charges of 

willful failure to file income tax returns. Even though 

defendants styled their motions as ones for new trial, fair 

construction of their papers convinces us that the real objective 

was to secure vacation of the judgments and sentences. 

Consequently, the actions should be treated as motions for writs 

of error coram nobis. 

In defendants' direct criminal appeal we held that the 

failure of the district court to advise defendants of the dangers 

of proceeding to trial ~ se was harmless error beyond a 

reasonable doubt. United States v. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746, 749 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 284 (1989). Since then, we have 

had occasion to revisit our Dawes ruling in the context of another 

defendant proceeding to trial without counsel. 

In United States v. Allen, F.2d No. 88-2486 (10th 

Cir. February 6, 1990), we reconsidered the use of harmless error 

analysis in a factually similar situation based on the Supreme 

Court's holding in Penson v. Ohio, 109 S. Ct. 346 (1988). In that 

case, the Court refused to apply harmless error analysis to a 

petitioner left without appellate representation. 109 s. Ct. at 

354. We have now concluded that Penson "precludes application of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3180 Document: 010110159011 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 2 
harmless error analysis to waiver of counsel cases." United 

States v. Allen, slip op. at 8. 

No lengthy analysis is needed to determine whether United 

States v. Allen is to be applied retroactively. Because the right 

to counsel is fundamental to insuring the very integrity of the 

fact finding process, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 639 

and n.20 (1965), we hold that our decision in Allen will be 

applied retroactively. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that the writ of 

error coram nobis is available to correct errors "of the most 

fundamental character." United States v. Morg":n, 3 46 U.S. 50 2, 

512 (1954) (quoting United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 

(1912)). Morgan held the district court had power under the AllWrits Act, 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a), to issue a writ of error coram 

nobis to vacate a conviction on the ground that the defendant had 

been deprived of counsel without his knowing waiver of his 

constitutional right to counsel. Although this writ is an 

"extraordinary remedy [available] only under circumstances 

compelling such action to achieve justice," 346 U.S. at 511, we 

believe circumstances here justify its issuance. 

We note that 28 u.s.c. § 2255 is not a bar to this motion, in 

spite of the fact that the defendants are currently in custody. 

See 346 U.S. at 511. Our decision in Allen is conclusive as to 

defendants' entitlement to a reversal of their convictions; thus, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3180 Document: 010110159011 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 3 
( 

§ 2255, which provides only for vacation or correction of a 

sentence, is an inadequate remedy in these circumstances. 

Finally, we note that the vacation of defendants' 

convictions, on their motion, on the ground that their right to 

counsel was violated does not prevent the government from retrying 

the defendants for the same offenses. Lockhart v. Nelson, 109 S. 

Ct. 285, 289 (1988). 

Accordingly, the orders of the district coutt denying new 

trials are REVERSED, and the matters are REMANDED with 

instructions to vacate the underlying convictions·and sentences. 

We also direct the district court to order the immediate release 

of the defendants. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-3180 Document: 010110159011 Date Filed: 02/06/1990 Page: 4