640 F.3d 69
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Rhines, a prisoner, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- His direct appeal and post-conviction challenges were denied; §2255 motions were denied in 2007, and a second/successive motion was denied in 2010.
- In 2010 Rhines filed a motion to amend §1651(a) writ and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in district court, alleging officer fabrication of evidence and perjury, based on indictments of two officers in 2007.
- Rhines claimed the prosecution suppressed the officers’ indictments, which would have exculpated him, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not discovering the indictments.
- The district court dismissed the coram nobis petition as not presenting extraordinary relief and because the claimed error was not within the writ’s scope; Rhines remained in custody, undercutting coram nobis eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis is available to a prisoner still in custody. | Rhines argues coram nobis can apply despite custody status. | Rhines is in custody; coram nobis typically requires not in custody. | No; coram nobis usually not available to those in custody. |
| Whether the alleged officer misconduct constitutes a fundamental, trial-invalidating error warranting coram nobis. | Indictments against officers would exculpate Rhines and impeach credibility. | Indictments were unrelated and not probative to Rhines's trial; no fundamental error shown. | Insufficient showing of a fundamental, jurisdictional error to void the conviction. |
| Whether petitioner could use coram nobis where an alternative remedy (§2255) exists or previously denied. | Coram nobis is a separate route due to new evidence from officer indictments. | Availability of §2255 or its denial precludes coram nobis for these claims. | Coram nobis not available when alternative remedies exist or have been denied. |
| Whether the claims are procedurally barred because they amount to unfounded attacks on evidence or counsel already raised or could have been raised earlier. | Officers’ indictments show trial errors and ineffective assistance. | Claims are speculative and not demonstrably exculpatory or ineffective-package issues. | No basis to conclude a coram nobis-valid substantial error; still speculative and not properly raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000) (coram nobis jurisdiction is limited; in-custody constraint noted)
- United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989) (errors must go to jurisdiction; remedy narrower than other writs)
- Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard for coram nobis relief and related procedures)
- United States v. Dawes, 895 F.2d 1581 (10th Cir. 1990) (custody status discussed in coram nobis context)
- United States v. Johnson, 237 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of legal issues in coram nobis denial)