Opinion ID: 1043976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Jurisdictions’ Application of

Text: Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Guilty Pleas In 1954, the Supreme Court observed that there “are few cases where the power to consider a motion for coram nobis relief has been denied.” Morgan, 346 U.S. at 510. At the federal level, therefore, the writ of error coram nobis, grounded in hundreds of years of common law, remains a valid remedy available to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea. Id.; see also 16A Fed. Proc. L. Ed. § 41:603 (West 2011) (stating that an “invalid guilty plea resulting in a conviction and sentence has been held subject to challenge by a motion for a writ of error coram nobis”); 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 209 (2011) (explaining that “challenges [to guilty pleas] can be made by writ of coram nobis that the plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily”); 18 Am. Jur. Trials 1 § 17 (1971) (explaining that “[c]oram nobis is a proper remedy for relief from a conviction that followed a plea of guilty that was entered as a result of fraud, duress, or mistake”). The power to grant such relief stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the all-writs section of the federal code.13 Morgan, 346 U.S. at 506. In Morgan, where the defendant challenged a prior conviction based upon a guilty plea, the Court held that “no other remedy being then available . . . this motion in the nature of the extraordinary writ of coram nobis must be heard by the federal trial court.” Id. at 512. In recognizing coram nobis as an avenue to challenge a conviction founded upon a guilty plea, the Supreme Court clearly expressed concern that unless such relief was afforded, no other remedy would be available. The writ, likewise, has historically been available to challenge guilty-plea convictions in state courts. Because most states’ post-conviction statutes or procedural rules offer the protections previously provided by coram nobis, the writ is often encompassed by broader post-conviction schemes than our own. See, e.g., Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Ky. 1983) (explaining that “[Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure] 60.02 was enacted as a substitute for the common law writ of coram nobis”); State v. Blakesley, 989 A.2d 746, 751 (Me. 2010) (describing Maine’s modern post-conviction statutes’ replacement of the writ of coram nobis remedy); Morris v. State, 918 So. 2d 807, 808 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (opining that Mississippi’s “post-conviction relief statutes explicitly replaced the writ of error coram nobis”). Nevertheless, in the numerous states that continue to recognize writs of error coram nobis as separate and distinct from other post-conviction remedies, guilty pleas can be challenged via the writ. See, e.g., Echols v. State, 125 S.W.3d 153, 156 (Ark. 2003); Skok 13 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006) states that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” -10- v. State, 760 A.2d 647, 662 (Md. 2000); State v. Brooks, 874 A.2d 280, 287 (Conn. Ct. App. 2005); People v. Antoniou, 872 N.Y.S.2d 756, 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Most importantly, at all times past and present, where a state has offered the writ of error coram nobis as a potential remedy in criminal matters, there has never been an outright bar against using the writ to challenge a conviction based on a guilty plea.14