Opinion ID: 1043976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General History

Text: The common-law writ of error coram nobis, which came into being five centuries ago, “allowed a trial court to reopen and correct its judgment upon discovery of a substantial factual error not appearing in the record which, if known at the time of judgment, would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 666-67 (Tenn. 1999). While available in criminal proceedings, the common-law writ may have been “more frequently employed in civil cases” in this country. Id. at 667. But see Adler v. State, -5- 35 Ark. 517 (1880) (recognizing writs of error coram nobis as available remedies in criminal cases); Ex parte Toney, 11 Mo. 661 (1848) (directing the issuance of coram nobis relief in criminal cases); Jones v. Commonwealth, 108 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Ky. Ct. App. 1937) (acknowledging writ of error coram nobis as a common-law remedy); see also John S. Gillig, Kentucky Post-Conviction Remedies and the Judicial Development of Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.42, 83 Ky. L.J. 265 (1994-1995). The United States Supreme Court in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 114 (1935), construing California law and citing People v. Mooney, 171 P. 690 (Cal. 1918), confirmed the continuing availability of the writ of error coram nobis in criminal proceedings, explaining that a “motion to set aside the judgment after it had become final and a motion for new trial had been denied, and the time therefor[e] had expired, was ‘in the nature of an application for a writ of error coram nobis, at common law.’” See Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 667; 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 194 (2011). One author examining the writ highlighted a case in which a petitioner, whose conviction was based on a guilty plea and had become final, sought and received coram nobis relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Morgan Prickett, The Writ of Error Coram Nobis in California, 30 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1, 2 (1990) (citing People v. Welch, 394 P.2d 926 (Cal. 1964)) [hereinafter Prickett, 30 Santa Clara L. Rev.]. In reference to the procedure, the author described coram nobis as “evok[ing] common law antecedents dating back to Norman feudalism and royal prerogative,” while also retaining a “vital . . . utility.” Id. at 2.6