Court Opinion

ID: 9473991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:45:14.068056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:51.014390
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority holds that the time limit for criminal appeals should apply to appeals from denial of a writ of error coram nobis. Because I believe this conclusion is based upon an erroneous reading of United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) (Morgan), I respectfully dissent.
The majority pegs its reasoning on footnote 4 of Morgan. The majority deems the first sentence of that footnote to be controlling: a coram nobis petition “is a step in the criminal case and not, like habeas corpus where relief is sought in a separate case and record, the beginning of a separate civil proceeding.” Id. at 505 n. 4, 74 S.Ct. at 249 n. 4.
The Supreme Court in Morgan did not intend to impose on coram nobis proceedings all of the rules of criminal procedure. To the contrary, the Court observed in the same footnote that a coram nobis petition “is of the same general character as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Id. at 506 n. 4, 74 S.Ct. at 249 n. 4. The Court cites the reviser’s note to section 2255, id., which points this out vividly: “This section restates, clarifies and simplifies the procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of error coram nobis. It provides an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 reviser’s note. When the Court in Morgan allowed coram nobis petitions beyond those authorized by section 2255, it in no way held that rules appropriate for section 2255 are inappropriate for all other coram nobis proceedings.
Indeed, it seems to me that the Court’s limited purpose in drawing the connection between the coram nobis petition and the prior criminal trial was to emphasize the fact that rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, although it abolished cor-am nobis in purely civil matters, was not intended to affect the common law of cor-am nobis related to judgments in criminal cases. See United States v. Balistrieri, 606 F.2d 216, 220-21 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 917, 100 S.Ct. 1850, 64 L.Ed.2d 271 (1980) (Balistrieri); Neely v. United States, 546 F.2d 1059, 1066 (3d Cir.1976) (Neely); United States v. Keogh, 391 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1968) (Keogh), United States v. Tyler, 413 F.Supp. 1403, 1404-05 (M.D.Fla.1976) (Tyler). I believe that the majority errs when it applies the Court’s words without proper reference to their limited purpose, and without giving serious consideration to the Supreme Court’s more general direction that coram nobis and section 2255 proceedings should be treated analogously. The Seventh Circuit has accurately interpreted the meaning of Morgan's footnote 4: “[A] coram nobis motion is a step in a criminal proceeding yet is, at the same time, civil in nature and subject to the civil rules of procedure.” Balistrieri, 606 F.2d at 221.
The appropriateness of applying the 60-day time limit for appeals to both section 2255 motions and coram nobis petitions becomes apparent on reflection. The Second Circuit concluded that similar time limits are called for under Morgan, observing that “policy considerations supporting prescription of a very short time for appeal in a criminal case are notably absent in cor-am nobis.” Keogh, 391 F.2d at 140. For purposes of time limits for appeal, I see no reason to distinguish between common law coram nobis, section 2255 eoram nobis, and even a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 571 n. 21, 573 & n. 25 (9th Cir.) (coram nobis petitions should be treated like section 2255 claims and habeas corpus petitions for purposes of analyzing issues and determining the necessity of a hearing), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 866,102 S.Ct. 329, 70 *1501L.Ed.2d 168 (1981); Neely, 546 F.2d at 1066 (common law coram nobis action for relief from criminal judgments need not be characterized as criminal in nature); Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts Rule 1 advisory committee note (“the fact that Congress has characterized the [section 2255] motion as a further step in the criminal proceeding does not mean that proceedings upon such a motion are of necessity governed by the legal principles which are applicable at a criminal trial”).
To obtain a writ pursuant to either section 2255 or a habeas corpus petition the petitioner still must be “in custody.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2241(c)-(d); see also Pey-ton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968) (applying “in custody” requirement for habeas corpus). The common law writ of coram nobis is so far removed from the original trial and the time constraints of the original trial proceeding that it dispenses even with the “in custody” requirement. Cf. Tyler, 413 F.Supp. at 1404-05 (that petitioner no longer is in custody reflects civil nature of coram nobis proceeding). Yet now, over 40 years after completion of trial, and over 40 years after Yasui completed his sentence, the majority concludes that the tight time limits of criminal procedure must be applied — even as it admits that those limits are not “explicitly applicable.” Maj. op. at 1498. In my judgment, the majority adopts a conclusion which is supported neither by the weight of authority in other circuits, nor by sound policy, nor by Morgan itself.