State v. Sinclair
49 A.3d 152
Vt.2012Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 1993 to assault and robbery under a plea agreement for a two-to-twelve year sentence.
- In March 1993 the court conducted a change-of-plea hearing and accepted the plea.
- Defendant later served his sentence and, long after, filed a pro se coram nobis petition in Nov. 2010 to vacate the 1993 conviction.
- The coram nobis petition claimed the plea was involuntary due to lack of disclosure about sentence enhancement and drug intoxication.
- The trial court denied the petition; on appeal, defendant argued the Rule 11 colloquy and counsel were inadequate.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding coram nobis is available only where no other remedy exists, and PCR precludes coram nobis when relief is available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is coram nobis available where PCR relief is available? | State: PCR precludes coram nobis if relief is available. | Sinclair argues coram nobis should remain available for defects in plea. | Coram nobis is not available when PCR provides a remedy; PCR precludes coram nobis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beardsley v. Gordon’s Administrator, 3 Vt. 324 (1830) (early recognition of coram nobis but not for errors of law)
- In re Garceau, 124 Vt. 220 (1964) (limits on coram nobis; relates to where relief may be sought)
- United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (1914) (coram nobis as original-criminal-case remedy; foundation for availability)
- Morgan v. United States, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (reinvigorated coram nobis via All Writs Act; limits and conditions)
- Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647 (Md. 2000) (expansion to fundamental/legal errors justified by collateral consequences)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) (limits on coram nobis; distinction from Mayer)
- In re Laws, 2007 VT 54 (VT 2007) (PCR pathway as available remedy in Vermont)