Wilson v. State of Mississippi
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Petitioner cannot seek coram nobis relief in federal court for a state court conviction. Therefore, Petitioner's request for a writ of coram nobis to invalidate his 1994 state court burglary conviction is denied for this Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion shall be issued. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on November 26, 2012. (lda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
BOBBY E. WILSON, JR., #52274
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-137-DCB-RHW
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner
Wilson, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed this pro se Petition for a
writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, on October 1, 2012. Upon review of the
Petition along with the applicable case law, the Court has reached the following conclusions.1
I. Background
Petitioner is currently serving a term of life imprisonment for a 2004 robbery conviction
entered by the Warren County Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced as a habitual offender,
based at least in part, on his 1994 state court conviction for automobile burglary.
In the Petition before the Court, Wilson argues that his 1994 automobile burglary
conviction is invalid because he “was tricked by my court appointed counsel as to the elements
of the charge and the acts which constitute [] the charge.” Pet. [1] at 1. Petitioner claims that the
petition he signed to plead guilty referred to attempted burglary of a vehicle as opposed to actual
burglary. Petitioner further argues that he did not have the necessary intent to establish burglary
and that the facts surrounding the crime only support a charge of trespassing.2 As relief,
1
Petitioner was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis in this case.
2
Specifically, Petitioner claims that he intended to “ride home in the car [and] then abandon it” which
would only be a “temporary” use of the vehicle constituting “trespassing.” See Pet. [1] at 2.
Petitioner is seeking “the removal of the 1994 burglary conviction.” Id. at 4.
II. Analysis
A writ of error coram nobis is available to federal courts pursuant to the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).3 The writ is accessible to a petitioner who has completed his sentence and
is no longer “in custody” for purposes of seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2255.
United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir.1998). However, the “function of the writ of
error coram nobis is to permit a court to review its own judgement,” not to provide a state inmate
with an alternative avenue to challenge his conviction in federal court. Sinclair v. Louisiana,
679 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1982). As the Fifth Circuit has made clear “the writ of error coram
nobis is not available in federal court to attack state criminal judgments.” Id.
That is precisely what Petitioner seeks to do in this case. He is attacking a state criminal
judgment and seeking a writ of coram nobis as relief. The Court is without jurisdiction to grant
his request. Id., see also Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2006)(collecting
cases)(“the district courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis to set aside judgments of
state courts”).
Furthermore, the Court will not liberally construe this case as a petition for habeas corpus
relief pursuant to § 2254, for several reasons. First, Petitioner clearly states that he is seeking a
writ of coram nobis because he does not meet the “in custody” requirement for habeas corpus
relief. Secondly, Petitioner specifically requests that the Court “not construe the current motion
under a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Pet. [1] at 4. And
3
Section 1651(a) provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.”
2
finally, Petitioner’s attempt to include essentially the same claims regarding his 1994 auto
burglary conviction in a § 2254 habeas corpus petition (that challenged his 2004 robbery
conviction) was previously rejected by this Court. See Wilson v. Epps, No. 5:07cv165 (S.D.
Miss. July 26, 2010), aff’d, No. 10-60648 (5th Cir. 2011), cert denied, No. 11-6896 (2012).
III. Conclusion
As explained above, Petitioner cannot seek coram nobis relief in federal court for a state
court conviction. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a writ of coram nobis to invalidate his 1994
state court burglary conviction is denied for this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion shall be issued.4
SO ORDERED, this the 26th
day of November, 2012.
s/David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
The Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not applicable to an order denying coram nobis
relief. See U.S. v. Perkins, 424 F. App’x 328 (5th Cir. 2011).
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?