Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:01-CV-101-C, (6:97-MG-085).
April 27, 2002
ORDER
Petitioner, Alfred Campos-Padilla, filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). The Government filed an answer, to which the Petitioner responded.
Petitioner was charged by complaint in the San Angelo Division on August 15. 1997, with Illegal Entry Into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 1329. He pleaded guilty on August 15, 1997, after waiving the right to be represented by counsel. He was sentenced to 90 days' incarceration. He did not appeal his conviction and sentence, nor did he seek collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Petitioner claims that venue was not proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division, and that he pleaded guilty without the constitutional assistance of counsel.
A review of the record in Petitioner's criminal action filed' in 6:97-MG-085-1 indicates that
(1) Petitioner was arrested in Edon, Texas (which is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division).
(2) Petitioner appeared before the United States Magistrate Judge in the San Angelo Division on August 15, 1997.
(3) An interpreter was present
(4) Petitioner appeared without counsel.
(5) Petitioner waived his right to an attorney.
(6) Petitioner consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.
(7) Petitioner entered a plea of guilty.
(8) Petitioner was sentenced to 90 days confinement.
Petitioner seeks to have his conviction and sentence vacated and the criminal complaint dismissed.
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 criminal conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief. This writ will issue only to correct errors resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice.Jimenez v. Trominski, 917 F.3.d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996).
To prevail, Petitioner must show that
(1) no other remedy is available and sound reasons exist for his failure to seek appropriate relief;
(2) he is suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the criminal conviction he is collaterally attacking; and
(3) he can overcome the presumption of correctness of the judicial proceedings in his criminal case.United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998).
In his original petition Petitioner failed to allege any civil disabilities that he was suffering as a consequence of this misdemeanor conviction. It was only in his response to the Government's answer that he now alleges that he "could suffer a civil disability because of this criminal conviction, as increased imprisonment interferes with any civil ability to gain employment, see his family, engage in marital relations, etc."
"[T]o be entitled to coram nobis relief, a petitioner must establish both that he is suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the criminal conviction and that the error involved in his conviction is `of the most fundamental character' — that is, error that has resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Bruno, 903 F.2d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 1990).
"An uncounseled conviction that results in imprisonment is unconstitutional only if the defendant did not waive his right to an attorney." United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94, 100 (5th Cir. 1995). The record of the judicial proceedings in Petitioner's case reflect that he waived his right to an attorney. Although Petitioner now claims that he did not waive his right to counsel, he has presented no evidence to support his claim; therefore. Petitioner has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the judicial proceedings.
Petitioner's challenge to venue is without merit. See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 390-93 (5th Cir. 2001) (a challenge to venue after conviction may not be raised on appeal or collateral review if a defendant did not object to venue for the first time until after his conviction).
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements necessary for the issuance of the "extraordinary remedy" of coram nobis; therefore, his Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis is denied, and this case dismissed with prejudice.