United States v. Harrison ( 2015 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
v. ) Criminal No. 12-088 (ESH)
)
RONALD C. HARRISON, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Ronald C. Harrison, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). (Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, Oct. 14,
2015 [ECF No. 24] (“Pet.”).) For the reasons stated herein, the petition will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2012, defendant entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
one count of unlawful possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii). (Plea Agreement, Oct. 4, 2012 [ECF No. 12].)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), defendant and the government
agreed that a total sentence of 15 years (180 months) was the appropriate sentence of
imprisonment for the offense. (Id.) On December 18, 2012, defendant was sentenced to 180
months imprisonment to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. (Judgment in a
Criminal Case, Dec. 18, 2012 [ECF No. 20].) Defendant did not file a direct appeal; nor did he
timely file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, he has now filed a petition for writ
of error coram nobis asking the Court to vacate his “unlawful conviction.” (Pet. at 1.)
DISCUSSION
At common law, “[t]he writ of coram nobis was available . . . to correct errors of fact . . .
that affect the validity and regularity of the judgment.” United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502,
507 (1954). “It was allowed without limitation of time” and “was used in both civil and criminal
cases.” Id. Although now abolished in civil proceedings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, federal courts
retain the authority to grant a writ of error coram nobis in criminal proceedings under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).1 Morgan, 346 U.S. at 510-11 (rejecting argument that enactment
of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “should be construed to cover the entire field of remedies in the nature of
coram nobis in federal courts”); United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2220-21 (2009).
It is frequently observed that the writ of error coram nobis is an “extraordinary remedy.”
See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 511 (relief “should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy only
under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice”); Denedo, 129 S. Ct. at 2220
(writ is “an extraordinary tool to correct a legal or factual error”). Yet, as the Supreme Court has
noted: “[i]n American jurisprudence, the precise contours of coram nobis have not been well
defined.” Denedo, 129 S. Ct. at 2220. In this Circuit, the “leading case” in defining the writ is
United States v. Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688 (D.D.C. 1995). See United States v. Williams, 630 F.
Supp. 2d 28, 32 (D.D.C. 2009). As described in Hansen, the writ is “an equitable tool for federal
courts to ‘fill the interstices of the federal post-conviction remedial framework,’” through which
“the federal judge who imposed a sentence has the discretionary power to set aside an underlying
conviction and sentence which, for a valid reason, should never have been entered.” Hansen,
906 F. Supp. at 692 (quoting United States v. Ayala, 894 F.2d 425, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); see
1
The All Writs Acts provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of
Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
2
also United States v. McCord, 509 F.2d 334, 341 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (petition for writ “may
collaterally attack only constitutional or jurisdictional errors or serious defects in the trial either
not correctible on direct appeal or where exceptional circumstances justify the failure to appeal
on those grounds”). In order to justify issuance of the writ, the petitioner must show that
(1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking
the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction
sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the
error is of the most fundamental character.
Hansen, 906 F. Supp. at 692–93.
Defendant claims that his conviction should be vacated “due to the unconstitutionality of
Title 21 that has no[t] been approved, certified and enacted into positive law by the elected
members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.” (Pet. at 1.) At a minimum, defendant
has failed to show a valid reason for not raising this argument earlier. See Hansen, 906 F. Supp.
at 692. None of the material facts or applicable laws have changed since defendant’s conviction,
so he could have raised this argument in a direct appeal or in a timely-filed motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255.2 In addition, defendant has failed to show fundamental error. See Williams, 630
F. Supp. 2d at 32 (“A showing of fundamental error is undoubtedly required to win coram nobis
relief.”); see also United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 186 (1979) (“coram nobis
jurisdiction” exists only “in those cases where the errors were of the most fundamental character,
that is, such as rendered the proceeding itself irregular and invalid”). Indeed, defendant has
failed to show any error at all. His claim that Title 21 is not an enforceable statute because it was
never enacted into “positive law” has absolutely no legal basis. As defendant has failed to
2
At this point, defendant would be procedurally barred by the one-year statute of limitations
from proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
3
satisfy at least two of the four conditions necessary to justify coram nobis relief, his petition will
be denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Court will deny defendant’s petition
for a writ of error coram nobis. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: October 21, 2015
4