Court Opinion

ID: 9841334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 00:00:29.34276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:54.011337
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50132         Document: 00516904030             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50132
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 21, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   David Scott Trudeaux,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CV-797
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          David Scott Trudeaux, former federal prisoner # 18385-280, appeals
   the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his 2010
   convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
   violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder money instruments,
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He argues that the district court erred by

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50132       Document: 00516904030          Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-50132

   denying relief on his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective
   assistance due to an alleged conflict of interest, (2) the trial court erred by
   granting certain motions regarding his appointed counsel, (3) prosecutorial
   misconduct occurred, (4) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
   failing to inform him of a plea offer, and (5) his trial counsel violated his due
   process rights by relaying statements to the Government that the
   Government later used in superseding indictments.
            “The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available to a
   petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in
   circumstances where the petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a
   consequence of the conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient
   magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d
   767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “[C]ourts must be cautious so
   that the extraordinary remedy of coram nobis issues only in extreme cases.”
   United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 916 (2009). Coram nobis relief will be
   granted to correct only fundamental errors that result in a complete
   miscarriage of justice. United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422, 430 (5th Cir.
   1998).
            A petitioner seeking the writ must show: (1) a continuing civil
   disability as a consequence of his prior conviction, United States v. Castro, 26
   F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1994); that (2) he exercised “reasonable diligence in
   seeking prompt relief,” Dyer, 136 F.3d at 427 (internal quotations omitted);
   (3) no other remedy is available, id. at 422; and (4) unless relief is granted,
   there will be “a complete miscarriage of justice,” Castro, 26 F.3d at 559. We
   review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law
   de novo, and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse
   of discretion.” Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir.
   2008), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1046 (2010).

                                          2
Case: 23-50132      Document: 00516904030           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                     No. 23-50132

          Trudeaux’s alleged conflict of interest claim has already been fully
   litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.          Asserting a claim previously
   presented in a § 2255 motion does not amount to the necessary showing of a
   complete miscarriage of justice. United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535
   (5th Cir. 2004). As for his claims that the trial court erred by appointing
   counsel without inquiry into potential conflict, his trial counsel failed to relay
   a plea offer, and that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, he has not shown
   he exercised reasonable diligence in raising these claims. Dyer, 136 F.3d at
   427. Lastly, because it was not presented to the district court, we will not
   consider his claim that counsel violated his due process rights. See Morris v.
   Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2014).
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3