United States v. Tarango
670 F. App'x 981
10th Cir.2016Background
- Daniel Tarango sought a writ of coram nobis to vacate his 1999 federal drug conviction based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The alleged facts giving rise to the ineffective-assistance claim were known to Tarango between 13 and 17 years before he filed the coram nobis petition.
- Tarango argued he only recently recognized the legal significance of those facts and thus delayed filing.
- The government (and the district court) maintained Tarango failed to exercise due diligence and that coram nobis was an inappropriate vehicle for claims that could have been raised earlier.
- The panel declined to reach a possible mootness question, instead disposing of the case on threshold grounds and affirmed the district court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / due diligence for coram nobis | Tarango: late discovery of legal significance excuses delay | Govt: facts were known long ago; ignorance of law is not an excuse | Denied — Tarango lacked due diligence |
| Availability of §2255 and preclusion of coram nobis | Tarango: was unaware of right to use §2255 | Govt: coram nobis cannot be used for claims that could be raised under §2255 | Denied — claim barred because it could have been raised via §2255 |
| Use of coram nobis to relitigate ineffective assistance | Tarango: ineffective assistance renders plea invalid now | Govt: coram nobis is rarely appropriate; these issues were previously available | Denied — coram nobis inappropriate here |
| Mootness (threshold) | Suggestion petition may be moot | Court: possible but unnecessary to decide given other grounds | Not reached — other threshold bars dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (coram nobis is rarely appropriate in modern federal criminal cases)
- Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2000) (ignorance of the law generally does not excuse untimely filing by pro se prisoners)
- Embrey v. United States, [citation="240 F. App'x 791"] (10th Cir. 2007) (coram nobis requires due diligence)
- United States v. Payne, 644 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2011) (coram nobis may not be used to litigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or through §2255)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (the availability or inadequacy of §2255 is determinative for coram nobis eligibility)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (courts may choose among threshold grounds to avoid reaching the merits)