Trujillo v. State
310 P.3d 594
Nev.2013Background
- In 1996 Walter Trujillo, a Venezuelan national, pled guilty to attempted burglary in Nevada, received a suspended sentence with probation, and was honorably discharged from probation in 1997.
- The conviction produced immediate immigration consequences; Trujillo was initially ordered deported, later successfully challenged that order and obtained permanent-resident status.
- In 2010, after learning his 1996 conviction prevented U.S. citizenship, Trujillo filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis claiming trial counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences (relying on Padilla v. Kentucky).
- The State argued Nevada’s post-conviction habeas scheme (NRS 34.724(2)(b)) abolished coram nobis as an alternative remedy; the district court treated the petition as habeas and denied relief as outside coram nobis scope.
- The Nevada Supreme Court held coram nobis exists in Nevada under Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1) and NRS 1.030 but only for petitioners no longer in custody and limited to the common-law scope: factual errors outside the record that would have precluded the judgment.
- The court affirmed denial because Trujillo’s ineffective-assistance claim is a legal claim (Strickland standard) outside coram nobis’s limited factual-error scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is available in Nevada | Trujillo: coram nobis remains available under common law/NRS 1.030 and art. 6 § 6 | State: NRS 34.724(2)(b) makes habeas the exclusive post-conviction remedy, abolishing coram nobis | Coram nobis exists in Nevada under art. 6 § 6(1) and NRS 1.030 for petitioners not in custody |
| If available, what is its scope? | Trujillo: coram nobis should reach Padilla-style ineffective-assistance claims | State: scope should be limited (or abolished) by post-conviction scheme | Limited to common-law scope: errors of fact outside the record that would have prevented judgment; not expanded to encompass broad legal claims |
| Whether NRS 34.724(2)(b) abolishes coram nobis for those not in custody | Trujillo: legislative history doesn’t show intent to replace coram nobis for noncustodial petitioners | State: exclusive-remedy language encompasses all common-law remedies | NRS 34.724(2)(b) precludes coram nobis for petitioners who are in custody, but does not bar it for those not in custody |
| Whether Trujillo’s Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claim could be raised via coram nobis | Trujillo: Padilla retroactively allows challenge; coram nobis is his only remedy now | State: ineffective-assistance is a legal claim outside coram nobis; habeas is exclusive if in custody | Denied: ineffective-assistance claims are legal (Strickland) and fall outside coram nobis’s factual-only scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen client of deportation risk from plea)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (federal coram nobis revitalized and expanded under all-writs power)
- Bigness v. State, 71 Nev. 309 (1955) (Nevada case previously treating coram nobis as unavailable/statutory gap)
- Jackson v. State, 115 Nev. 21 (1999) (habeas-petitioner must be in custody; custodial prerequisite reaffirmed)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Hyung Joon Kim, 202 P.3d 436 (Cal. 2009) (coram nobis limited to factual errors outside the record)