Court Opinion

ID: 9852588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:33:18.671762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:30.304668
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
Born of necessity, as an emergency measure, the writ of coram nobis, originating in the Sixteenth Century, exists to afford a remedy against injustice — when no other remedy is available. People v. Hairston, 10 N.Y.2d 92, 217 N.Y.S.2d 77, 176 N.E.2d 90 (1961); Kiger v. United States, 315 F.2d 778 (7th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 924, 84 S.Ct. 270, 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963). With the repeal of the Uniform Post Conviction Act by the State Legislature in 1983, the remedies available under the common law, specifically coram nobis, became available. This is subject, of course, to the Habeas Corpus Act, as amended in 1983, SDCL ch. 21-27, which largely supplanted the Post Conviction Procedure Act. Brock-mueller is not restrained of his liberty. Thus, the Habeas Corpus Act is not available to him. And I say: became available again, for the verbiage in Fanning v. State, 85 S.D. 246, 180 N.W.2d 853 (1970), suggests that this Court, in 1970, recognized this ancient writ as a historic common law writ. The language in Fanning implies that it had been engulfed by the Uniform Post Conviction Act.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the validity of the writ of coram nobis. A research of coram nobis cases will reveal several cases in the highest Court of this land and general support of said writ. For a case supporting the concept that the writ, just as issued in this case, is to rectify an unjust situation for an error of fact not apparent on the record and unknown to the court at the time of trial which would have brought about a different result, see Janiec v. McCorkle, 52 N.J.Super. 1, 144 A.2d 561 (1958), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 944, 80 S.Ct. 811, 4 L.Ed.2d 772 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 804, 81 S.Ct. 470, 5 L.Ed.2d 461 (1961). See also, Dwyer v. State, 151 Me. 382, 120 A.2d 276 (1956) (citing Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411, 62 S.Ct. 688, 86 L.Ed. 932 (1942)). Historically, at common law, a cor-am nobis writ of error was presented to a chancery court but a judgment is now challenged in the court where the judgment was entered. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954). As the procedural background reflects in the case at bar, Brockmueller did go before the trial court where his invalid convictions were of record.
*140When Brockmueller was called to trial on the Part II Information (felony), he was in no position to call to the attention of the trial court a decision made by this Court in Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1983). This legal point is critical. For, if Brockmueller knew grounds for relief and failed to call it to the attention of the trial court, he could not thereafter raise it by a writ of coram nobis. People v. Painter, 214 Cal.App.2d 93, 29 Cal.Rptr. 121 (1963). That the judgments, upon which the felony was predicated, would be later vacated due to jurisdictional defects, was a fact unknown to him at the time of entry of his plea and without fault on his part. It was a mistake of fact on his part. This was also unknown to the trial court when the plea was accepted. If known to Brock-mueller or the trial court, rendition of the felony judgment would not have taken place. Coram nobis therefore lies. People v. Tuthill, 32 Cal.2d 819, 198 P.2d 505 (1948). The invalidity of the Part II Information could only be shown by reference to matters dehors the record, matters which arose subsequently. Events occurring after the judgment have been treated as within the ambit of coram nobis. Hair-ston, 217 N.Y.S.2d 77, 176 N.E.2d 90. More specifically, as applied to the case at bar, a judgment — based on a judgment which is subsequently reversed — may be vacated on a writ of error coram vobis. Butler v. Eaton, 141 U.S. 240, 11 S.Ct. 985, 35 L.Ed. 713 (1891).
There are three final legal points I wish to address. First, the writ of error coram nobis is not exhausted simply due to the fact that the judgment has been fully executed. Lopez v. Killigrew, 202 Ind. 397, 174 N.E. 808, 74 A.L.R. 631 (1931). Second, a writ of error coram nobis is a civil, as distinguished from criminal, proceeding. Yet, it is available in criminal and civil cases. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248; People v. Paiva, 31 Cal.2d 503, 190 P.2d 604 (1948); State v. Miller, 161 Kan. 210, 166 P.2d 680 (1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 749, 67 S.Ct. 76, 91 L.Ed. 646 (1946); People v. Fowler, 175 Cal.App.2d 808, 346 P.2d 792 (1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 1627, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 (1960); Duncan v. Robbins, 159 Me. 339, 193 A.2d 362 (1963). Third, the burden of proof is upon the petitioner to establish the validity of his pleading by a preponderance of the evidence, Dwyer v. State, 120 A.2d 276 (1956), and civil procedure rules generally govern in the premises. See Merkie v. People, 15 Ill.2d 539, 155 N.E.2d 581 (1959), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1015, 79 S.Ct. 1156, 3 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1959); Glenn v. People, 9 Ill.2d 535, 137 N.E.2d 336 (1956).
It is not my intention to supplant the substantive thought of the majority opinion. I agree with its substantive base: A man should not have a felony conviction on his record based upon two invalid convictions. Coram nobis: our Court; coram vo-bis: before you. These are separate writs. The latter being a writ of error directed by a reviewing tribunal to a lower court (which tried the cause) to correct an error of fact.