Source: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/chintan-v-patel-v-state-of-wisconsin-2011ap2861-district-1-91112/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:49:27+00:00

Document:
¶13 “A person seeking a writ of coram nobis must pass over two hurdles.” State v. Heimermann, 205 Wis. 2d 376, 384, 556 N.W.2d 576 (Ct. App. 1996). First, the individual must establish that no other remedy is available. … See Heimermann, 205 Wis. 2d at 376. Second, … “there must be shown the existence of an error of fact which was unknown at the time of [the plea] and which is of such a nature that knowledge of its existence at the time … would have prevented the entry of judgment.” See Jessen, 95 Wis. 2d at 214. The writ does not “correct errors of law and of fact appearing on the record since such errors are traditionally corrected by appeals and writs of error.” Id.
¶14 Patel urges us to view the scope of the writ of coram nobis more expansively. He cites Ernst, supra; United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954); and Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647 (Md. 2000), for the proposition that the writ may in fact apply to legal errors of fundamental and constitutional dimension, particularly when there are “serious collateral consequences.” See Skok, 760 A.2d at 660-61 ….
¶15 While Patel correctly points out that several states have adopted this broadened view, see, e.g., id. at 658-59 (collecting cases following the broadened scope of the writ of coram nobis), the standard articulated by Jessen and Heimermann leads us to conclude that Wisconsin has not done so.
¶16 …. Furthermore, … Wisconsin courts have repeatedly reiterated the rule that the writ does not “correct errors of law and of fact appearing on the record,” see, e.g., Jessen, 95 Wis. 2d at 214; Heimermann, 205 Wis. 2d at 381-84 (discussing history of writ of coram nobis and citing cases that explain writ’s current scope).
¶25 Turning next to Patel’s contention that he required an interpreter, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the writ regarding this alleged error because: (1) it is a legal issue; and (2) it is an error appearing on the record. See Jessen, 95 Wis. 2d at 214.
¶26 “Whether the trial court erred in not conducting an inquiry before trial to determine if an interpreter was necessary … is a question of law.” See State v. Yang, 201 Wis. 2d 725, 731, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Ct. App. 1996). Thus, the writ of coram nobis does not apply here. See Jessen, 95 Wis. 2d at 214.
UPDATE. Federal coram nobis litigant may have greater – which is to say, some – hope for success: U.S. v. Akinsade, 4th Cir 09-7554, 7/25/12 (guilty plea induced by counsel’s bad advice that wouldn’t subject defendant to deportation; court holds that petition for writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 supported IAC-based challenge to plea).
this office needs to somehow make this information available to the inmates in the Wisconsin department of corrections because it is a very helpful tool that a lot of inmates could and would use.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1651