United States v. Trudeaux ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50132 Document: 00516904030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50132
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 21, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Scott Trudeaux,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CV-797
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
David Scott Trudeaux, former federal prisoner # 18385-280, appeals
the denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his 2010
convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder money instruments,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He argues that the district court erred by
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50132 Document: 00516904030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50132
denying relief on his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance due to an alleged conflict of interest, (2) the trial court erred by
granting certain motions regarding his appointed counsel, (3) prosecutorial
misconduct occurred, (4) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to inform him of a plea offer, and (5) his trial counsel violated his due
process rights by relaying statements to the Government that the
Government later used in superseding indictments.
“The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available to a
petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in
circumstances where the petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a
consequence of the conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient
magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d
767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “[C]ourts must be cautious so
that the extraordinary remedy of coram nobis issues only in extreme cases.”
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 916 (2009). Coram nobis relief will be
granted to correct only fundamental errors that result in a complete
miscarriage of justice. United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422, 430 (5th Cir.
1998).
A petitioner seeking the writ must show: (1) a continuing civil
disability as a consequence of his prior conviction, United States v. Castro, 26
F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1994); that (2) he exercised “reasonable diligence in
seeking prompt relief,” Dyer, 136 F.3d at 427 (internal quotations omitted);
(3) no other remedy is available, id. at 422; and (4) unless relief is granted,
there will be “a complete miscarriage of justice,” Castro, 26 F.3d at 559. We
review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law
de novo, and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse
of discretion.” Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir.
2008), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1046 (2010).
2
Case: 23-50132 Document: 00516904030 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50132
Trudeaux’s alleged conflict of interest claim has already been fully
litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Asserting a claim previously
presented in a § 2255 motion does not amount to the necessary showing of a
complete miscarriage of justice. United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535
(5th Cir. 2004). As for his claims that the trial court erred by appointing
counsel without inquiry into potential conflict, his trial counsel failed to relay
a plea offer, and that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, he has not shown
he exercised reasonable diligence in raising these claims. Dyer, 136 F.3d at
427. Lastly, because it was not presented to the district court, we will not
consider his claim that counsel violated his due process rights. See Morris v.
Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2014).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3