Court Opinion

ID: 9444357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 20:57:47.866776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:49.942425
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result but for different reasons. At least two conditions prece-dent to the availability of the extraordinary writ of coram nobis are set forth in United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511, 512, 74 S.Ct. 247, which do not exist in this ease.. One is expressed on page 512 of 346 U.S., on page 253 of 74 S.Ct. of the opinion, “ * * * and sound reasons existing for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief * * No such reasons appear in this case to excuse the delay of more than fifteen years. The other condition is expressed on page 511 of 346 U.S., on page 252 of 74 S.Ct. of the opinion:
“Continuation of litigation after final judgment and exhaustion or waiver of any statutory right of review should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the present case, the petitioner even in the final amendment to his petition freely concedes that he actually was guilty of the offense to which he pleaded guilty.1 The injustice of which he com*499plains relates to the New York Habitual Criminal Law, Penal Law, McK.Consol. Laws, c. 40, § 1020 et seq., rather than to his federal conviction.
After making all allowances for formal defects in the petition because petitioner does not appear through counsel, it seems clear to me that the facts averred do not bring this case within the rule of the Morgan case, supra. I therefore concur specially.

. In that amendment the petitioner says: “Nothing in my Petition to this Honorable Court is in any way intended to excuse or justify' the crime I committed. My act was morally and legally wrong and, of course, I deserved to be punished. However, that does not prevent the court from now determining that such conviction was faulty, for the aforementioned conditions which are supported by legal precedent, and for the setting-aside of his conviction in the interest of humane and fair treatment to a petitioner who is suffering an unjust and lengthy imprisonment because of such conviction, even though he has already served his sentence and settled his., debt to the Federal Court.”