United States v. Payne
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12233
10th Cir.2011Background
- Payne, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months in 2009.
- He did not appeal or file a §2255 motion; on September 1, 2010, he filed a writ of error coram nobis alleging innocence and police misconduct.
- The district court denied relief and directed the clerk to forward the coram nobis motion to Special Attorney for investigation.
- Payne appeals the district court’s denial, challenging the availability of coram nobis and the sufficiency of §2255 as an alternative remedy.
- The court grants rehearing to revise the prior order, but ultimately affirms the denial of coram nobis relief.
- The court discusses custody, availability of §2255, and the credibility of an actual-innocence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is coram nobis available to a prisoner in custody challenging a conviction? | Payne argues coram nobis is available despite custody. | The government contends custody plus availability of §2255 generally bars coram nobis. | No; coram nobis relief is not available when §2255 is available or adequate. |
| Is relief under §2255 unavailable or inadequate to permit coram nobis relief? | Payne argues coram nobis is needed when §2255 is insufficient. | Pa | §2255 relief is available or adequate; coram nobis is not warranted. |
| Does Payne's actual-innocence claim render coram nobis relief appropriate? | Payne asserts actual innocence with new evidence. | The government contends the claim is not credible and lacks new reliable evidence. | The claim is not colorable and does not meet Schulp-like standards. |
| Did binding precedent allow coram nobis despite a time-bar on §2255 relief? | Payne relies on exceptions to the time-bar. | No, §2255 unavailability or inadequacy is not shown merely by time-bar status. | Coram nobis not available where §2255 would be available or adequate. |
| Should the court rely on prior dicta or overrule Dawes in light of §2255 applicability? | Payne relies on Dawes to justify coram nobis relief. | The court overrules Dawes to reaffirm §2255 availability. | Dawes is overruled to the extent inconsistent with the current §2255 framework; coram nobis remains unavailable where §2255 is adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawes, 895 F.2d 1581 (10th Cir. 1990) (coram nobis relief to in-custody petitioners; addresses availability of §2255)
- Torres, 282 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2002) (prisoner cannot challenge sentence or conviction via coram nobis while in custody)
- Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2008) (coram nobis only when no other remedy is available)
- Embrey v. United States, 240 Fed.Appx. 791 (10th Cir. 2007) (coram nobis available only when other relief is unavailable or inadequate)
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2011) (§2255 will rarely be inadequate to challenge a conviction)
- Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (§2255 not inadequate or ineffective merely because it's time-barred)
- Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2002) (§2255 relief is not unavailable merely due to time-bar)