State of Connecticut v. Russell Battles (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS

The petitioner, Russell Battles, moves for articulation regarding the court's denial of his pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis on March 6, 2013.   The petitioner seeks to have his 2003 conviction for possession of narcotics with the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a–277 vacated and to be charged instead with simple possession.   The petitioner, who is currently incarcerated due to an unrelated offense, pleaded guilty to the possession with the intent to sell charge and subsequently completed the resulting sentence and probation.   As a result of this conviction, the petitioner contends that he received a sentence enhancement on a later charge pursuant to the federal sentencing guidelines.   He argues that the due process clause of the United States constitution mandates that his conviction be reversed on the ground that his guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary.   In addition, he argues that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel pursuant to the sixth amendment.   The petitioner further contends that other remedies, such as a writ of habeas corpus, are not available to him because he has served his sentence and his current incarceration is unrelated to the challenged conviction.   The petitioner also asks the court to liberally construe his petition due to his pro se status.¹

“A writ of error coram nobis is an ancient common-law remedy which authorized the trial judge, within three years, to vacate the judgment of the same court if the party aggrieved by the judgment could present facts, not appearing in the record, which, if true, would show that such judgment was void or voidable.  Montville v. Alpha Mills Co., 86 Conn. 229, 233 (1912) ․ The facts must be unknown at the time of the trial without fault of the party seeking relief ․ A writ of error coram nobis lies only in the unusual situation [in which] no adequate remedy is provided by law.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 370–71 (2009).

As set forth above, the petitioner in the present case was convicted in 2003.   In State v. William C., 135 Conn.App. 466 (2012), the court addressed the defendant's claim that the trial court incorrectly dismissed the defendant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within three years of the defendant's convictions.   On appeal, the defendant claimed that the writ could be brought at any time following conviction.  Id., 468.   The court rejected the defendant's argument and reasoned:  “Contrary to the defendant's position, our Supreme Court expressly has indicated that a writ of error coram nobis can only vacate a judgment if brought within three years of the date of judgment.  State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 370 (2009) (‘[a] writ of error coram nobis is an ancient common-law remedy which authorized the trial judge, within three years, to vacate the judgment of the same court’ [emphasis added] ).”   State v. William C., supra, 468.

Because more than three years lapsed between the petitioner's conviction and his filing of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the court lacks jurisdiction over the writ.   See State v. Carter, 142 Conn.App. 156, 160 (2013) (“[t]he three year limitation period [for filing a writ of error coram nobis] is jurisdictional”).   Although the court previously denied the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, “a trial court has inherent authority to open and modify a judgment it rendered without jurisdiction.   Such a judgment is void ab initio and is subject to both direct and collateral attack ․ It is an acknowledged principle of ․ every court in the world, that not only the decisions, but everything done under the judicial process of courts, not having jurisdiction, are, ipso facto, void ․ If a court has never acquired jurisdiction over a defendant for the subject matter ․ any judgment ultimately entered is void and subject to vacation or collateral attack.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Broaca v. Broaca, 181 Conn. 463, 467–68 (1980).   Accordingly, the court modifies its prior denial and instead dismisses the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of error coram nobis is dismissed.

Keegan, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court notes that while Connecticut courts “allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”  New Haven v. Bonner, 272 Conn. 489, 498 (2005)..  FN1. The court notes that while Connecticut courts “allow pro se litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”  New Haven v. Bonner, 272 Conn. 489, 498 (2005).

Keegan, Maureen M., J.