The most common grounds for obtaining relief are issues that invalidate the plea of guilty in general.[319]

 

            The petitioner must show:

 

            1.         At the time of judgment, an error of fact existed;

 

            2.         The fact does not appear in the record and does not involve the merits of the issues tried;

 

            3.         The fact was not introduced at trial either

 

                        a.         because it was not discovered at the time of trial, without the fault or negligence of defendant, or

 

                        b.         because of duress, fraud, or excusable mistake;

            4.         Knowledge of the fact would have prevented the rendition of the judgment; and

 

            5.         Defendant used due diligence to discover the facts and pursue the writ.

 

In People v. Weidersperg,[320] the requirements for coram nobis were met where, at the time of accepting the plea, the judge was unaware that the defendant was a noncitizen, and would not have rendered the judgment had he known that the defendant would thereby be rendered deportable.  The defendant’s attorney also did not know and had no reason to know of the defendant’s alienage; moreover the defendant did not know of his own vulnerability to deportation because of the conviction.[321]

   

            Because this newly discovered evidence did not go to guilt or innocence, and neither defendant nor counsel was aware of the possibility of deportation until deportation proceedings had begun, coram nobis was held to be available.

 

            Other grounds may exist where the judge was unaware that the defendant was mentally incapacitated when the crime was committed or the plea entered, where the petitioner did not understand the charges against him or her, or when a guilty plea was fraudulently induced by a state official’s unkept promise.[322]

 

[319] E.g., People v. Esquibel, 44 Cal.App.3d 591, 118 Cal.Rptr. 748 (1975); People v. Wiedersperg, 44 Cal.App.3d 550, 118 Cal.Rptr. 755 (1975); People v. Cortez, 13 Cal.App.3d 317, 91 Cal.Rptr. 660 (1970); People v. Butterfield, 37 Cal.App.2d 140, 142, 99 P.2d 310, 311 (1940).

[320] People v. Weidersperg, 44 Cal.App.3d 550, 118 Cal.Rptr. 755 (1975).

[321] Because of all the legal mumbo jumbo at the time a plea is entered, it is quite common for a defendant not to understand the full significance of the California Penal Code § 1016.5 admonition, and coram nobis should be available if this occurs.

[322] People v. Shipman, supra (incapacitation); People v. Wadkins, 63 Cal.2d 110, 113, 45 Cal.Rptr. 173 (1965) (fraudulent inducement); People v. Chaklader, 29 Cal.App.4th 407, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 344 (1994) (defendant’s hope that later federal sentence would be concurrent insufficient to establish grounds for coram nobis relief); People v. Wadkins, 63 Cal.2d 110, 113, 45 Cal.Rptr. 173 (1965) (coram nobis appropriate where guilty plea is induced by mistake, fraud or coercion); Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases § 2.151, p. 372; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 443, 154 P.2d 657 (1944) (defendant’s reliance must be in good faith and without negligence on his part); People v. Abdullah, 6 Cal.App.4th 1728, 1737, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 (1992) (defendant hoped to be placed in federal custody but was not told this was more than a mere possibility); People v. Goodrum, 228 Cal.App.3d 397, 401, 279 Cal.Rptr. 120 (1991) (defendant must show a reasonable person in his situation would have pleaded differently if more fully advised of consequences).

Sixth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - STATE VEHICLES - CORAM NOBIS
Sanusi v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 148760 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2007) ("The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment. " Clorid v. State, 182 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Ark.2004) (quoting State v. Larimore, 17 S.W.3d 87, 93 (Ark.2000)). " Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid " and " [t]he mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. " Id. (quoting Larimore, 17 S.W.3d at 93). "The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary writ, known more for its denial than its approval." Echols v. State, 201 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Ark.2005)").