Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03276/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven R. DeWitt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

I • 

\ 

FILED 1s . ed Statei Court of Appea 

Uo1t 'tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS /l.\'R 1 7 ,99, 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

STEVEN R. DEWITT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3276 

(D.C. No. 87-30010-01) 

(D. Kans.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the denial of defendant's motion for a 

writ of error coram nobis, the remedy of "last resort." D. Wilkes, 

Federal and State Postconviction Remedies and Relief§ 6-5, at 102 

(1987). The defendant claimed that at his trial no blacks were in 

his jury venire in violation of the equal protection clause and 

his "right . to a fairly [sic] representation of a cross-

.,section of the community." Petitioner[' ]s Motion for Writ of Error 

Coram Nobis at 2. Defendant did not raise this objection at trial 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-3276 Document: 010110034237 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
I 

• 

or on direct appeal, but subsequently did claim it under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. In that proceeding the court ruled against his claim. 

The district court in this case denied the writ for several 

reasons. First the court found that "coram nobis is unnecessary, 

and will not lie, if the defendant has a remedy available under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. Adam v. United States, 274 F.2d [880, 882] (10th 

Cir. 1960)." Dist. Ct. Order at 2. Second, the court held that 

"[a]n issue that has been resolved against the defendant on a 

§ 2255 motion cannot be relitigated on a coram nobis application 

in the absence of new credible evidence or a change in the law," 

and that neither exception applied to this case. Id. Finally, the 

district court correctly pointed out that the defendant was not 

"entitled to coram nobis relief" because "[t]he defendant's 

objection to the jury panel is too late. Davis v. United States, 

411 U.S. 233 (1973)." Id. 

We see no error in these conclusions as applied to this case. 

Indeed, any one of them would serve to bar the defendant from the 

relief he seeks. We note, however, that on appeal defendant 

raises the issue of whether the failure to object to the racial 

composition of the jury voir dire "was a mistake of his attorney 

..•• " Br. of Appellant at par. 4. Respondent avers that 

although "defendant ... suggests that he was denied effective 

assistance of counsel[,] [t]his issue, was raised for the first 

time in defendant's [present] appeal, and therefore is not 

properly before this Court." Br. of Appellee at 2. We agree that 

the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on 

petitioner's attorney's failure to object to the voir dire's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3276 Document: 010110034237 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
racial composition was not raised below and therefore we cannot 

consider that claim on this appeal. Any such claim must be 

brought in a new§ 2255 action. 

We AFFIRM the district court's denial of defendant's motion 

for writ of error coram nobis and DENY defendant's request for 

appointed counsel on appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3276 Document: 010110034237 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3