Robert Haughie v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00632-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124482]. Mailed to: Robert D. Haughie MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - JESSUP P. O. Box 549 Jessup, MD 20794-0000. [17-6424]

Appeal: 17-6424

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6424

ROBERT HAUGHIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00632-JFM)

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert D. Haughie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6424

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert D. Haughie appeals the district court’s order construing his petition for a
writ of error coram nobis as a petition for a writ of mandamus and denying relief. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A writ of error coram nobis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012) can be used to vacate a conviction when there is a
fundamental error resulting in conviction and no other means of relief is available.
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 509-11 (1954); United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d
1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir. 1988). Haughie failed to establish the grounds needed to obtain
relief under this writ. To the extent that Haughie sought mandamus relief, the district
court correctly stated that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus
relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586,
587 (4th Cir. 1969), and do not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist.
of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2