563 F. App'x 592
10th Cir.2014Background
- In 1985 Perceval was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) for possessing a homemade knife in prison; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- He later filed a § 2255 habeas petition and a Rule 59(e) motion challenging application of an amended § 1791; both were denied and those denials were affirmed.
- In 2012 Perceval pled guilty to attempted assault; prosecutors sought sentence enhancements based in part on his 1985 conviction.
- In August 2013 Perceval petitioned for a writ of coram nobis, arguing the 1985 conviction should have required proof of intent and that its use for enhancements would be unjust.
- The district court denied coram nobis relief, finding Perceval was not diligent, other remedies were adequate, and he failed to show the alleged error caused a miscarriage of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is available for Perceval's claim | Perceval: He only learned in 2012 that the 1985 conviction could trigger enhancements and thus was diligent; alleged jury-instruction error undermines the conviction | Government: Prior remedies (appeal, § 2255) were adequate; claim is a re-litigation of issues already decided and petitioner admitted possession | Denied — Perceval failed to show diligence or that available remedies were inadequate; claim re-litigates previously adjudicated issues |
| Whether the alleged jury-instruction/intent error amounted to a "complete miscarriage of justice" | Perceval: Improper instruction may have led to wrongful conviction despite not denying possession | Government: Perceval admitted possessing an object that looked like a knife on appeal; he does not assert actual innocence | Denied — No miscarriage of justice because Perceval admitted possession and did not assert actual innocence |
| Whether coram nobis may be used to relitigate previously litigated claims | Perceval: Sought relief on claimed statutory/instructional error from 1985 conviction | Government: Coram nobis is not available for issues already litigated | Denied — Coram nobis reserved for claims not previously disposed of; this claim was previously litigated |
| Whether Perceval was selectively prosecuted | Perceval: Asserted selective prosecution as part of his coram nobis petition | Government: Not addressed as independent basis for relief; underlying procedural deficiencies fatal | Denied — Court did not grant relief; selective-prosecution claim not accepted as basis for coram nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are construed liberally)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (describing coram nobis as collateral attack for persons no longer in custody)
- United States v. Perceval, 803 F.2d 601 (10th Cir. 1986) (direct appeal affirming Perceval's 1985 conviction)
- United States v. Bustillos, 31 F.3d 931 (10th Cir. 1994) (coram nobis requires showing of actual innocence / miscarriage of justice)
- Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (court will not act as pro se litigant's advocate)
- Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1989) (coram nobis not available to relitigate issues already litigated)