Opinion ID: 2000007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Omitted Information Would Have Affected the Outcome

Text: The second factor the court must consider in determining whether a writ of error coram nobis should issue is whether the error (the omitted information showing duress) would have affected the outcome. The trial court here was well within its discretion in determining that the omitted information would have affected appellee's sentence. In imposing appellee's sentence the trial court relied upon a presentence report, a memorandum submitted by the United States Attorney's Office entitled Government Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing, allocution by appellee's attorney, Charles Stow, allocution by the Assistant United States Attorney and by appellee. The presentence report stated that appellee was born in Jonesville, New York, and that Khaalis was his guardian. No information was provided as to appellee's parents or family background; rather, the report indicated that appellee refused to give the name of his parents because he felt such information was irrelevant. The report stated that appellee moved to Washington, D.C. to be taught by Khaalis. It suggested that appellee's involvement in the takeover was based upon Khaalis' interpretation of the Holy Quran that the Muslims must defend their faith, an interpretation which, according to appellee, could not be in error or questioned. The report indicated that appellee felt he was not programmed or brainwashed as people would like to believe and that he was not at an impressionable age when he joined the Hanafi Muslims. It also stated that appellee related to the crimes in which he had been convicted in an oblivious manner and that he felt the takeover was justified because of a need to defend his religious faith. In the reporting officer's view, appellee was committed to being a dedicated member of the Hanafi Muslims. The report further stated that appellee claimed that while he was stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, he attended prep school for West Point. It stated that appellee graduated from Calvin Coolidge High School in 1972, and that he served in the United States Army from 1972 to March of 1973 and was honorably discharged for hardship dependency. The report indicated that appellee denied any use of narcotics or alcohol and that he had no prior criminal arrests or convictions. Additionally, the report indicated that appellee told the interviewing officer that he did not believe in taking advantage of people and that it would have been nefarious to hurt the unarmed hostages during the takeover. The government's memorandum in aid of sentencing stated, Hamid, who physically assaulted Mr. Charles Fenyvesi at B'nai B'rith, should similarly receive three consecutive fifteen years to life sentences for armed kidnapping and a consecutive three to ten year term for the assault on Wesley Hymes. In his allocution, Charles Stow requested the trial court to place appellee on probation. He stated that appellee had served in the United States Army and was not a narcotics user. He informed the trial court that appellee was neither a common thief nor a criminal. He reminded the trial court that appellee had assisted a hostage during the siege who had a heart problem and that there had been no testimony adduced during the trial suggesting appellee had engaged in violent activity. Mr. Stow's allocution covered that which was contained within the presentence report, or was disclosed during the appellee's trial. Mr. Stow presented no new information to the trial court for its consideration in fashioning the appropriate sentence for appellee. Appellee, allocuting in his own behalf, requested the trial court to place him on probation, stating he was not a criminal and that he was a sincere, patriotic, and good citizen of the United States. The government, in its allocution, reminded the trial court that it had heard testimony during trial from Mr. Charles Fenyvesi to the effect that defendant had smashed him in the mouth with a gun, and then smashed him in the nose with his fist. The government, characterizing defendant's actions as being part of the plan of deliberate senseless violence, requested the court to impose the sentence recommended in its sentencing memorandum.