Its purpose is to correct errors of fact that affect the regularity or validity of legal proceedings, and legal errors of a constitutional or fundamental proportion.United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979). See also, United States v. McCord, 509 F.2d 334, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ( coram nobis relief available for "constitutional or jurisdictional errors or serious defects in the trial either not correctable on appeal or where exceptional circumstances justify the failure to appeal on those grounds"), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 930, 95 S.Ct. 1656, 44 L.Ed.2d 87 (1975).
A writ of error coram nobis is also available to correct egregious legal errors in prior convictions. See, e.g., Navarro v. United States, 449 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1971) (allowing assertion of a self-incrimination defense): Lewis v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 851 (D.Alaska 1970) (same); see also United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507-08, 74 S.Ct. 247, 250-51, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) (noting that the writ has been commonly used in this fashion); United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979) (noting that only fundamental legal errors can justify issuance of the writ; refusing to issue the writ). In choosing an appropriate time limit for appeal, the only assistance that the Morgan opinion provides is contained in a footnote to the opinion.
But other lower courts blur or disregard the distinction entirely, and apply the writ to legal errors as well. See, e.g., United States v. McCord, 509 F.2d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1974); United States v. Bonansinga, 855 F.2d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Wickham, 474 F.Supp. 113, 116 (C.D. Cal. 1979). For present purposes, this debate is academic.
Although the writ of error coram nobis was available at common law only for errors of fact, its modern scope has been expanded to allow relief for fundamental errors of law. See United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir. 1988) (jury instructions rendered invalid after a subsequent Supreme Court decision); United States v. Loschiavo, 531 F.2d 659, 666-67 (2nd Cir. 1976) (conviction vacated because federal offense "never existed" based on subsequent Supreme Court decision) (citing Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346, 94 S.Ct. 2298, 2305, 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974)); Cardall v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 912, 915 (D.Utah 1984) (coram nobis encompasses "legal errors of a fundamental proportion"); United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979) (present-day scope of coram nobis is broad enough to encompass "legal errors of a fundamental proportion"). In any case, only the Federal District Court which rendered the judgment of conviction, may grant such writ.
While coram nobis is a narrow and extraordinary remedy, its present scope encompasses not only errors of fact that effect legal proceedings, but also legal errors of a constitutional or fundamental proportion. United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979). On a writ of error coram nobis, the court may determine whether the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
See United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir. 1989) ("The writ provides a remedy for those suffering from the 'lingering collateral consequences of an unconstitutional or unlawful conviction based on errors of fact' and 'egregious legal errors.'") (citation omitted); Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496, 1499 n.2 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A writ of error coram nobis is also available to correct egregious legal errors in prior convictions). See, e.g., Navarro v. United States, 449 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1971) (allowing assertion of a self-incrimination defense); Lewis v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 851 (D. Alaska 1970) (same); see also United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507-08, 74 S. Ct. 247, 250-51, 98 L. Ed. 248 (1954) (noting that the writ has been commonly used in this fashion); United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D. Cal.1979) (noting that only fundamental legal errors can justify issuance of the writ; refusing to issue the writ); Skok, 361 Md. 52, 760 A.2d 647 at 661 (holding that a person should be able to file a motion for coram nobis relief regardless of whether the alleged infirmity in the conviction is considered an error of fact or an error of law). We hereby announce that the writ of error coram nobis is available to correct errors of fact and egregious legal errors.
We hold, however, that coram nobis encompasses legal errors of constitutional significance such as jurisdictional defects. United States v. McCord, 509 F.2d 334, 341 (D.C.Cir. 1974); United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979); 3 Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, ยง 592 at 428 (2nd ed. 1982). The error presented in this case is of the fundamental nature contemplated by coram nobis.
However, "'[t]he present-day scope of coram nobis is broad enough to encompass not only errors of fact that affect the validity or regularity of legal proceedings, but in addition, legal errors of a constitutional or fundamental proportion.'" Tillman v. United States, 32 M.J. 962, 965 (A.C.M.R. 1991) (quoting United States v. Wickham, 474 F. Supp. 113, 116 (C.D.Cal. 1979)). Included among the limited number of claims that may result in relief being granted through petitions rooted in coram nobis is ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.