Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-1442
    ___________
    Charles A. Trobaugh,                      *
    *
    Movant - Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    State of Iowa,                            *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Respondent - Appellee.              *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 16, 1998
    Filed: February 17, 1998
    ___________
    Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER,* District Judge.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Charles A. Trobaugh filed a Motion for a Writ of Error Coram
    Nobis in the district court, arguing that an expired Iowa state court conviction that had
    been used to enhance his federal sentence should be vacated because of an involuntary
    guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a due process/equal protection
    *
    The HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for
    the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    violation during state post-conviction proceedings. The district court1 dismissed the
    motion, concluding that the writ of coram nobis is not available if the petitioner is still
    in federal custody, and that the writ may not be used to challenge a state court
    conviction in federal court. Trobaugh appeals. After careful consideration, we agree
    with the district court that the writ of coram nobis may not be used to collaterally attack
    a state court conviction in this manner. Moreover, even if the district court had
    jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the expired state court conviction in
    question, “there is no federal constitutional right to collaterally attack a prior conviction
    used to enhance a sentence on any constitutional ground other than failure to appoint
    counsel for an indigent defendant.” Partee v. Hopkins, 
    30 F.3d 1011
    , 1012 (8th Cir.
    1994), applying Custis v. United States, 
    114 S. Ct. 1732
    (1994).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The HONORABLE RONALD E. LONGSTAFF, United States District Judge
    for the Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1442

Filed Date: 2/17/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021