Com. v. Morris, 705 S.E.2d 503

Morris pled guilty to petit larceny, receiving 12 months with 11 suspended; later faced INA deportation proceedings after a 1997 crime involving moral turpitude; in 2008 immigration judge ordered deportation.
Chan pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and battery, receiving 12 months with all time suspended; in 2009 USCIS determined she faced mandatory detention/deportation as an aggravated felony, triggering post-conviction relief considerations.
Circuit Court in Alexandria reduced Morris’s sentence by one day after a writ of error coram vobis/audita querela was sought, resulting in 364 days total.
Circuit Court in Norfolk amended Chan’s sentence to 360 days nunc pro tunc following petitions for the writs, amid deportation proceedings.
This Court granted review to determine (i) whether coram vobis/audita querela may modify a final Virginia sentence, and (ii) whether audita querela can be used to modify criminal sentences in Virginia, and (iii) the interplay with Rule 1:1 finality and related statutory waivers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram vobis/audita querela may modify a final Virginia sentence.	Morris/Chan contend these writs provide relief to correct errors not discoverable earlier.	Commonwealth argues Rule 1:1 finality and statutory limits bar post-judgment sentence modification by these writs.	No; both writs cannot modify final sentences under Virginia law.
Whether the asserted 'errors of fact' constitute grounds for coram vobis.	Morris/Chan identify misadvice/information as 'errors of fact' that would have prevented judgment.	Errors of counsel or misadvice do not satisfy 'errors of fact' under Code § 8.01-677.	Ineffective assistance of counsel or misguidance does not qualify as an 'error of fact' for coram vobis.
Whether audita querela is an available remedy to modify criminal sentences in Virginia.	Plaintiffs invoke audita querela as a post-conviction remedy.	Commonwealth asserts audita querela has never applied to criminal sentences in Virginia.	Not available to modify criminal sentences; audita querela is not an appropriate remedy here.
Whether the circuit courts had jurisdiction to modify final sentencing orders more than 21 days after entry under Rule 1:1.	Petitions seek post-21-day modification under writs.	Rule 1:1 eliminates post-judgment modification absent statutory exceptions.	Rule 1:1 precludes post-judgment modification; courts erred.

Dobie v. Commonwealth, 198 Va. 762 (1957) (defines coram vobis as correcting errors of fact not apparent on the record; not for newly discovered evidence)
Neighbors v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 503 (2007) (limits coram vobis under Code § 8.01-677 to clerical errors or errors of fact with narrow scope)
Blowe v. Peyton, 208 Va. 68 (1967) (restricts coram vobis to clerical or specific errors; legislature must expand scope)
McEwen Lumber Co. v. Lipscomb Bros. Lumber Co., 234 Va. 243 (1987) (Rule 1:1 finality policy with exceptions for statutory remedies)
Robertson v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 232 (1994) (finality and modification limits; historical context for Rule 1:1)