“[C]oram nobis relief is available to challenge the validity of a conviction, even though the sentence has been fully served, ‘under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.’”[168]

[168] Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987), quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954).

POST CON RELIEF - FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS
At common law, the writ of error coram nobis was used as a device for correcting fundamental errors in both civil and criminal cases. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 508 (1954). Although use of the writ was suspended in civil cases in federal courts, the writ has nevertheless survived to redress an ongoing injustice in a criminal case, and is available even after the defendant has completed serving his sentence. Id. at 508-511 [writ of coram nobis is available to void a judgment in a criminal case which was obtained in violation of the United States Constitution].

A writ of error coram nobis is "essentially a remedy of last resort for petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to a criminal conviction." United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 2000). Relief under a writ of coram nobis "is strictly limited to those cases in which errors of the most fundamental character have rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid." Ibid. Thus, the writ of error coram nobis is limited to defects in a criminal case which sap the proceeding of any legal validity and is intended to prevent substantial civil disabilities attached to a wrongful criminal conviction. United States v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 203 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Guerra, 92 N.M. 47, 50 (1978) [where Rule 60 is properly invoked "it should be liberally construed for the purpose of doing substantial justice"].

To obtain coram nobis relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) there are circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice; (2) sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate relief earlier; (3) the petitioner continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction that can only be remedied by granting of the writ; and (4) the error is fundamental. United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Foundation Reserve Insurance Co. v. Martin, 79 N.M. 737, 449 P.2d 339 (Ct.App. 1968) [Rule 60(B)(6) vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice]. Thanks to Tova Indritz.

Fifth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - FEDERAL - CORAM NOBIS
Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) (jurisdiction to hear the coram nobis petition was properly vested in the district court, not the magistrate judge who sentenced petitioner; coram nobis exists to correct errors of the most fundamental character, and will only correct errors resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - FEDERAL - CORAM NOBIS - LACHES
United States v. Riedl, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2230256 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2007) (laches argument that government has not been prejudiced by tardiness "would transform the extraordinary writ of coram nobis into a free pass for attacking criminal judgments long after they have become final." "It is irrelevant that the government has not established prejudice as to Riedl's void-for-vagueness claim because the doctrine of laches only becomes applicable once a petitioner has satisfied the second coram nobis requirement.").

POST CON RELIEF - FEDERAL -- CORAM NOBIS - GROUNDS - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE
United States v. Kwan, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1119652 (9th Cir. May 12, 2005) (affirmative misadvice by defense counsel concerning immigration consequences of disposition of criminal case constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel said deportation was not a serious possibility, and in fact it became a near certainty).