Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00087/USCOURTS-azd-2_90-cr-00087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Mark Crain
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs.

Terry Mark Crain, 

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-90-0087-PHX-RGS

CIV-03-2049-PHX-RGS (SLV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Restyle his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition

to a petition for writ of coram nobis. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen

L. Verkamp for Report and Recommendation. On March 2, 2004, the Magistrate Judge filed

his Report and Recommendation with the Court. On March 15, 2004, Movant filed his

objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. On February 22, 2005,

Movant filed a motion seeking leave to supplement his petition for writ of coram nobis.

BACKGROUND

On July 30, 1990, in CR-90-0087-PHX-RGS, Movant was sentenced to a term of 150

months imprisonment pursuant to a guilty plea to eleven counts of bank robbery. On

February 7, 1996, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was granted on October 26, 1998. Movant was subsequently resentenced to a term of 125 months imprisonment.

Case 2:90-cr-00087-RGS Document 69 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Movant was released from custody and placed on supervised release in 1999. In 2000,

Movant's supervised release was ordered revoked due to a violation and he was sentenced

to an additional seven-month term of imprisonment. After being released from custody,

Movant was convicted of additional bank robberies in CR-02-378-PHX-SRB and CR-03-

159-PHX-SRB, and was sentenced to a term of 156 months imprisonment.

On October 14, 2003, in CR-90-0087, Movant filed a second Petition to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant then filed a Motion to

Restyle his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to a petition for writ of coram nobis.

DISCUSSION

In his Petition to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

Movant challenges his 1998 re-sentencing, asserting that a sentence "enhancement for

'expressed threat of death' should not have been used as it was when sentenced in 1990 to 150

months." Movant contends that his "corrected sentence of 125 months did not give him the

extra one-point for acceptance of responsibility" that he was entitled to when he was resentenced on October 26, 1998. Movant also states that he "did not realize the court docket

of CIV 96-338 PHX RGS did not reflect that CR 90-87 PHX RGS was 'vacated' and

resentenced. It came into [his] attention March 24, 2003, when [he] was collaterally

attacking [his] prior sentences in another case."

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that because

Movant's section 2255 petition was not filed until October 14, 2003, more than three years

after Movant's sentence became final, Movant's petition was not filed within the one-year

statute of limitations provided by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

("AEDPA") and was, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations. Moreover, the

Magistrate Judge found that since Movant failed to state an adequate reason why he did not

file his section 2255 petition within the time specified by the AEDPA, the statute of

limitations should not be equitably tolled to allow Movant's section 2255 petition to be

considered timely filed. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge determined that because Movant

Case 2:90-cr-00087-RGS Document 69 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The writ of error coram nobis affords a remedy to attack a conviction when the

petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in custody. Specifically, the writ

provides a remedy for those suffering from the lingering collateral consequences of

an unconstitutional or unlawful conviction based on errors of fact and egregious legal

errors. Where the errors are of the most fundamental character, such that the

proceeding itself is rendered invalid, the writ of coram nobis permits a court to

vacate its judgments ... .

We have held that to qualify for coram nobis relief, four requirements must be

satisfied. Those requirements are: (1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2)

valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences

exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of

Article III; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental character.

Estate of McKinney v. United States, 71 F.3d 779, 781-82 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations and

quotations omitted).

- 3 -

finished serving the challenged sentence in its entirety, his section 2255 petition may be

dismissed as moot.

Acknowledging that his section 2255 petition was moot because he finished serving

his entire sentence, Movant requested to convert his section 2255 petition to a petition for

writ of coram nobis.1

 Finding that, other than coram nobis, Movant had no other legal

remedy available to challenge his expired 1998 sentence for his 1990 conviction, the

Magistrate Judge granted Movant's request. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that

Movant failed to demonstrate the extraordinary showing required to merit the relief of coram

nobis. Specifically, Movant failed to demonstrate valid reasons for not previously attacking

his sentence and failed to show that the error alleged was of a "fundamental character."

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied and dismissed with

prejudice. Alternatively, he recommended that Movant's Motion to Restyle his 28 U.S.C. §

2255 petition to a petition for writ of coram nobis be granted and that the petition seeking

writ of coram nobis be denied.

Movant subsequently filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation essentially asserting, as he did previously, that his corrected sentence did

Case 2:90-cr-00087-RGS Document 69 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

not give him the extra one-point for acceptance of responsibility that he was entitled to when

he was re-sentenced on October 26, 1998, and that the Magistrate Judge failed state reasons

for denying his 2255 petition and/or his petition seeking writ of coram nobis. However, the

Court finds Movant's objections are without merit as he was not entitled to a sentence

reduction pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Aldana-Ortiz, 6 F.3d

601 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the guidelines amendment allowing an additional point

adjustment for acceptance of responsibility – November 1, 1992 amendment to section 3E1.1

of the Guidelines – was not retroactive); United States v. Solis-Solis, 810 F.Supp. 1231 (D.

Kan. 1993) (holding that the acceptance of responsibility amendment – November 1, 1992

amendment to section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines – was not retroactive).

On February 22, 2005, Movant filed a motion seeking leave to supplement his petition

for writ of coram nobis. Movant seeks to collaterally attack the sentence imposed arguing

that his sentence violates United States v. Booker (United States v. Fanfan), 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Here, although the more usual remedy of a section 2255 petition is no longer

available, the Booker decision is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

See United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the common law

writs survive only to the extent that they fill "gaps" in the current systems of post-conviction

relief. See United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001). Simply

because a section 2255 petition is procedurally unavailable to Movant now does not create

a gap in the system. See id. at 1080 ("A prisoner may not circumvent valid congressional

limitations on collateral attacks by asserting that those very limitations create a gap in the

postconviction remedies that must be filled by the common law writs.").

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and

Movant's objections thereto, the Court concludes that Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside

or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and/or petition seeking writ of coram nobis

will be denied. Since the Court finds that Movant's objections are without merit, the Court

will hereby incorporate and adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Case 2:90-cr-00087-RGS Document 69 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Additionally, the Court will deny Movant's motion seeking leave to supplement his petition

for writ of coram nobis.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and/or petition seeking writ of coram nobis is

DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's motion seeking leave to supplement his

petition for writ of coram nobis is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2006.

Case 2:90-cr-00087-RGS Document 69 Filed 09/05/06 Page 5 of 5