Wellman v. State of Maryland

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 5/7/12. (jmk, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/8/12)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JAMES WELLMAN,

*
Petitioner,

v.

* CIVIL ACTION NO. JFM-12-1242

STATE OF MARYLAND

*
Respondent.
***
MEMORANDUM

James Wellman, a federal detainee housed at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment
Center, filed this petition for writ of error coram nobis on or about April 18, 2012. Wellman is
awaiting sentencing on a federal drug charge in United States v. Wellman, Criminal No. JFM-09310 (D. Md.).

He is seeking the writ in order to vacate a previous conviction entered in the

Circuit Court for Baltimore County in 2007, out of concern that the “improper conviction”
would result in his receiving “sentence enhancement by the Federal Court.” ECF No. 1.
The claims raised by Wellman in this case go to the voluntariness of his guilty plea and
the effectiveness of his counsel in his state court criminal case before the Honorable Michael
Finifter. Citing Maryland caselaw, Wellman claims that Judge Finifter did not adequately
ascertain Wellman’s ability to enter a plea. Specifically, Wellman claims that he was under the
influence of Sudafed and therefore his plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Id.
ACoram nobis is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only under compelling
circumstances to correct errors of the most fundamental nature.@ Kramer v. United States, 579 F.
Supp. 314, 315 (D. Md. 1984) (citations omitted). Although abolished in most civil actions, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), coram nobis is still available to challenge a criminal conviction “under

Acircumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.@1 United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S.
502, 511 (1954).
Federal courts lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of the
state trial courts by way of coram nobis. This circuit and six other courts of appeal have
addressed this question and ruled that the district courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of coram
nobis to set aside judgments of state courts. See Thomas v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.
1964) (AError coram nobis....cannot issue under the instant proceeding....for the judgments are
not in the court which Thomas has petitioned.@);2 Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131, 134 (2nd
Cir. 2006) (district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over writs of coram nobis to set aside
judgments of state courts); Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3rd Cir. 2003) (“coram
nobis is not available in a federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment”);
Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[T]he writ of error coram nobis is not
available in federal court to attack state criminal judgments.”); Lowery v. McCaughtry, 954 F.2d
422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992) (ALowery's counsel conceded that she had not found even one decision in
the history of the United States using coram nobis to set aside a judgment rendered by another
court.@); Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240, 244 (8th Cir. 1967) (ARelief by the writ....is available,
if at all, only in the court which rendered the judgment under attack.@); Rivenburgh v. Utah, 299

1

To obtain coram nobis relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) there are
circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice, (2) sound reasons exist for [the] failure to seek
appropriate earlier relief, and (3) the petitioner continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction
that may be remedied by the granting of the writ. See United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d
Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
2

See also In re West, 3 Fed. Appx. 135 (4th Cir. 2001).

2

F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir. 1962) (Ause of the writ is limited by tradition and rule....and cannot be
used as a.....collateral writ of error between state and federal jurisdictions@);
Federal coram nobis relief is thus not available to attack Wellman’s Baltimore County
conviction. He is not without remedy as he may file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in
the Maryland courts.3 See generally Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647 (Md. 2000);4 State v. Hicks, 773
A. 2d 1056 (Md. App. 2001). Accordingly, a separate Order will be entered dismissing the
petition without requiring a response from respondent.
A habeas petitioner has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his
motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1). A certificate of appealability (“COA”) may issue “only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at §
2253 (c) (2). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a
certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid clam of the denial of a
constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)

3

The court observes that while Wellman intended to file a copy of his writ in this court, it
is captioned to be filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and the certificate of service includes
the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore county and the State’s Attorney for Baltimore County. It
appears that Wellman has also filed the writ in state court.
4

In Skok, the Court of Appeals of Maryland delineated only five qualifications to coram
nobis relief. These qualifications are: (1) the grounds for challenging criminal conviction must be of a
constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental character; (2) the presumption of regularity attaches to
criminal case, and burden of proof is on the coram nobis petitioner; (3) the coram nobis petitioner must
be suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from conviction; (4) the basic principles of
waiver are applicable to issues raised in coram nobis proceedings; and (5) one is not entitled to challenge
a criminal conviction by a coram nobis proceeding if another statutory or common law remedy is then
available. See Skok, 760 A.2d at 661-663.

3

(quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The court will not issue a COA because
petitioner has not made the requisite showing.

Date: ___May 7, 2012_____

____/s/___________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

4