THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
NO. 2016-0176
State of New Hampshire v. Paul Santamaria
RULE 7 DISCRETIONARY APPEAL
BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT
Counsel for the Defendant:
Philip H. Utter, Esq, Bar #2603 Green & Utter, P.A. 764 Chestnut Street Manchester, NH 03104 (603) 669-8446
(15 Minutes)
Counsel for the State: Stephen Fuller, Esq. Criminal Justice Bureau NH Department of Justice 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-3671 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page TABLE OF CASES ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ii
TEXT OF RELEVANTAUTHORITIES 1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 3
SUMMARYOF THE ARGUMENT 5
ARGUMENT 6
I. A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AFTER A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION AND SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE 6
11. THE PASSAGE OF TIME SHOULD NOT PROCEDURALLY BAR MR. SANTAMARIA’SPETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOB/S 10
III. ALLOWINGTHE USE OF CORAM NOBIS TO ADDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMSOF ERROR FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE SERVED THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY AND RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANT AND FUNDAMENTALRIGHT TO COMPETENT COUNSEL DURING CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS 14
CONCLUSION 15
COURTORDER 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page Avery v. Cunningham, 131 N.H. 138, 143 (1988) 10 Humphrey v. Cunningham, Warden, 133 N.H. 727 (1990)...... , 10
Janiec v. McCorkle, 52 N.J. Super. 1, 13-14 (1958) 6
Morris v. State, 918 So. 2d 807 (Miss. App. 2005) 9
Perley v. Roberts, 91 N.H. 254 (1941) 12
Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647, 658-659 (citations omitted) (Md. 2000) 9, 15
Rautenberg v. Munnis, 109 N.H. 25 (1968) 12
State v. Almodovar, 158 N.H. 548 (2009) 9, 10
State v. Blakesley, 989 A.2d 746 (ME 2010) 9
State v. Kelly, 120 N.H. 904 (1980) 12
State v. Pepin, 159 N.H. 310 (2009) 10
State v. Sinclair, 191 Vt. 489, 493, 49 A.3d 152, 155 (2012) 9
Statev. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011) 11
State of West Virginia v. Hutton, 776 S.E.2d 621 (W. Va. 2015) 8,9
Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590, 591 (Miss. 1984) 8
*3 Grant v. State, 2010 Ark. 286, 365 S.W.3d 894, 896 (2010) 9
People v. Poole, 209 N.Y.S.2d 126, 127 (1960) 9
Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52, 77, 760 A.2d 647, 660 (2000) 9
Smith v. United States, 20 A.3d 759, 763 (D.C. 2011) 9
State v. Sinclair, 191 Vt. 489, 493, 49 A.3d 152, 155 (2012) 9 Trujillov. State, 310 P.3d 594, 601 (2013) 9 State v. Whittaker, 158 N.H. 762 (2009) 5
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 5
United States v. Denado, 556 U.S. 904, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 173 L.Ed. 1235 (2009). 8
United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129 (1914) 6, 7
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954) 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 2016 WL 3369419 (2016) 14
OTHER AUTHORITIES Page
The Writ of Error Coram Nobis, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 744 (1924) 6
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7
J. Jacobs, The Eternal Criminal Record, 33-51 (2015) 15
New Hampshire RSA 526:1 3, 11, 12
New Hampshire RSA 534:1 12
Black’s Law Dictionary, 3 Ed. P. 1861 6
L. Yackle, Post-Conviction Remedies § 7-9 at 29-41 (1981) 6
T.C.A. §40-26-105 9
Young &Petersilia, Keeping Track, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1318, 1341-1352 (2016).... 15
CONSTITUTIONS Page
New Hampshire Constitution, Part I, Article 15 11, 14
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution 7, 11, 14
III
United
New
New
New
Hampshire
Hampshire
Hampshire
defense.
obtaining
confronted
law,
have
public
In
explained this
others
liberty convincing
Every of
criminal
deprived
counsel. against fully
property,
accuse
produce
No
of
or A
A
misfortune
States
all
the
person
new
right
other
subject
right
and
and
criminal
been
trial,
person
land;
shall
and
trial
to
or
Constitution,
him
charge
to
person,
all
he
witnesses
plainly,
of
immunities,
No
by imprisoned
a
furnish
committed,
with
by
Constitution,
be
that
evidence
RSA
RSA
shall justice
may
have
provided
his proofs
is
face
writ
the
subject
prosecutions,
held
an
informed
at
life,
the
the
by
of
534:1: be
526:1:
court. be
substantially
liberty
except
to
impartial
the
evidence
to
that
TEXT
has
reason habeas
witnesses
person
liberty,
face,
granted
in
held
that
that,
shall
right
answer
or
or
his
which
Sixth
not
may
to
of
Right.
privileges,
in
otherwise
When
to
OF
the
and
favor
Part
waive,
to
the
jury
in
be
of
the
or
been
suffers
corpus
answer
the
against
be
in
any
counsel
Amendment:
districts
insanity,
RELEVANT
in
person
estate,
arrested,
to
against
and
nature
cases
any
of
I,
favorable
and
accused
granted.
any
be
done
Article
proceeding
the
but
from
formally,
according
restrained case
put
fully
for
himself.
to
crime
I
is
only
but
state
and
mentioned
at
shall
him;
due
and
have
any
out
potentially
imprisoned,
a
the
heard
when
shall
15:
by
to
cause mental
after
AUTHORITIES
or
process
and
have
to a
of
crime,
expense
described
the
himself;
the
further
to
offense
Every
to
the
have
of
enjoy
through
in
the
district
commit
judgment
the
assistance
been his
of
in
disorder
his
protection
or
dangerous
the
the
matter
compulsory
shall
subject
provisions
despoiled,
personal
the
hearing
to
defense, offense,
of
punishable
previously
to
wherein
following
accusation;
accident,
meet
the
a
right
require
him;
person
of
must
has
state
of
shall
of
would
his
the
to
liberty,
until
to
or
counsel
by
of
been the
or
the
process
a
be
peers,
himself
that
section,
witnesses
be
have
mistake
by
ascertained
this
if
acquitted
himself,
speedy deprived
the
law,
need
established.
be
to
crime
compelled
deprivation
thoroughly
by
clear
chapter.
be
equitable.
same
a
for
or
exiled
an
for or
right
is
is
or
shall
and
the
and
his
and
to
shown;
officer
of
of
entitled
is
to
law
a
by his
or
to of QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Court erred by dismissing Mr. Santamaria’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on its conclusion that he was procedurally barred from seeking relief because he should have raised the claim on direct appeal, in a motion for a new trial or in a habeas corpus petition. The issue is preserved in the defendant’s response to the State’s Objection to Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis’ and the Court 2Order dismissing the defendant’s Petition for Writ of Coram Nob/s.
1 See Noticeof Appeal, page 30. 2 See Notice of Appeal, page 37.
2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS
In December 1997, the State obtained indictments from the Grafton County
Grand Jury charging Paul Santamaria with attempted murder and first degree assault
based upon a fight that occurred earlier that month in Plymouth, New Hampshire. The
State entered a nolle prosequi on the attempted murder charge and the first degree assault charge proceeded to trial in the Grafton County Superior Court in June of 1998.
Mr. Santamaria was found guilty and was eventually sentenced (Smith, J.) to 12 months at the County House of Corrections with a probationary period and certain conditions of probation. Mr. Santamaria served his stand committed sentence and successfully completed his probationary period.
In December of 2014, Mr. Santamaria filed a Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis asking that the Court vacate his conviction because he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Santamaria advanced three grounds for his ineffective assistance claim. First, he argued that trial counsel failed him by setting forth a theory of defense that was inconsistent with the known evidence. Second, he argued that trial counsel failed him in advising and preparing him for possible testimony. Third, he argued that trial counsel failed him in the plea bargaining stage of the case. In February of 2015, the State objected to the Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis, but did not raise the claim that the defendant was procedurally barred from seeking relief.
After the Court (MacLeod, J.) raised the issue of the applicability of the writ, the
State filed an additional objection in September of 2015 asserting for the first time that the defendant was barred procedurally from raising his ineffective assistance claim because coram nobis did not apply and because New Hampshire RSA 526:1 bars the
3 petition for a new trial. With the permission of the Court (MacLeod, J.) the defendant was permitted to respond to the State’s objection and did so in October of 2015. On
March 2, 2016, the Court (MacLeod, J.) issued an order denying the defendant’s
Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis finding that Mr. Santamaria had offered insufficient reasons to explain the 16 year delay between the date of his conviction and the date of his filing of the petition and, thus, was procedurally barred from litigating his ineffective assistance of counsel 3claim. The defendant timely appealed the Court’s order. On May 13, 2016, this Court accepted the appeal, indicating that it would schedule argument before the full Court.
See Defendant’s Notice of Appeal for all pleadings filed in the trial court. 4 SUMMARYOF THE ARGUMENT
Allclaims of ineffective assistance of counsel are resolved by reference to the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washinciton, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and confirmed in State v. Whittaker, 158 N.H. 762 (2009). A defendant is entitled to relief ifcounsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the deficient performance prejudiced him. Here, however, the Court dismissed Mr. Santamaria’s ineffective assistance claim solely on the ground that it was not timely brought. While there is no law in New Hampshire regarding the applicability of the Writ of Coram Nobis, the Court’s analysis that Mr. Santamaria should have and could have brought this claim in a more timely fashion is inconsistent with established law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claims and for motions for new trial. The Court should have allowed Mr. Santamaria’s claim to be decided on the merits as he continues to be prejudiced by the collateral consequences of his conviction obtained in violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel.
5 ARGUMENT
I. A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AFTER A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM INCARCERATIONAND SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE.
In its original form, coram nobis existed to give the trial court continuing jurisdiction over its own case to correct factual errors. Itwas meant to be used when there was no other procedural method for presenting a claim to the court. See generally, Black’s Law Dictionary, 3 Ed. p. 1861. For a general discussion of the origins of coram nob/s and its evolution in the common law, see L. Yackle, Post-
Conviction Remedies § 7-9 at 29-41 (1981); Note, The Writ of Error Coram Nobls, 37
Harv. L. Rev. 744(1924).
The writ originated in England to address the problem of trial courts having no jurisdiction to correct factual errors after final judgment had been entered. As described in Janiec v. McCorkle, 52 N.J. Super. 1, 13-14 (1958):
The writ. . . was originally devised in England as a means of rectifying the unjust situation arising from the fact that any allowable method of appeal at common law was limited only to review for errors of law and there was no redress for an error of fact not apparent on the record and unknown to the court at the timeof trial, which would have brought about a different result. Like all writs in those days, it issued out of Chancery and was addressed to the court in which the judgment had been entered, imploring that tribunal to recognize the error and correct the judgment. Later it was obtained by motion to the trial court itself.
The writ was recognized in this country. In United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35
S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129 (1914), the United States Supreme Court recognized the availability of coram nobis. The defendant in Mayer discovered after the trial that a juror had concealed his bias against the defendant during voir dire. The trial court held a hearing and granted a new trial. The Mayer court limited the use of coram nobis to
6
available
affirmed
He
without
sentence.
of
Although
Congress
allowed
the
Amendment
grounds
512-513. expansion
S.Ct.
circumstances
address
validity
“errors
coram
then
writ
247,
In
a
The
collaterally
of
the
in
without
and
to
that
Morgan,
nob/s
lawyer.
factual
the
had
coram
In
He matters
98
correct
of
use
modern
persist.
“Although
regularity
to
Morgan,
Federal
he
coram
was
L.Ed.
enacted
in
the
it
of
limitations
was
errors
originally
nobis
the
He
the
subsequently of
coram
the
attacked
United
248 day
nobis
was
fact
Subsequent
denied
All
Rules
defendant
the
wrong.
of
the
the
“of
was
Writs
use
(1954),
the
which
nobis
defendant
sentenced
the
States
term
of
to
encompassed.
habeas
of
available
his
the
of
legal
time.
include
portion
most
Civil
coram
in
federal
has
had
was
the
right
convicted
Constitution
convictions
part
proceeding Procedure
.
corpus
fundamental
been
United
was
not to
..“
convicted
a
to
at
of
nob/s
based
constitutional
four
(Citations
conviction
counsel
been
common
the
seeking
served,
7
of
In
statute,
States
years
Judiciary
is
on
new
United
may
put
when
itself.”
had
much
in
the
that
character.”
to
omitted.)
law
in
1939
the
charges imprisonment
14
Supreme
carry
abolished
the
issue...
set
fact
he
States
broader
was
claim
months
to
Act
Mayer
results
Court
pled
in
aside
correct
heavier
that
guaranteed
federal
of
of
in
v.
guilty.
1811.
Court
Morgan,
at
of
no
found
Id.
than
coram
New
error.
later.
his
Morgan,
and
68.
the
errors
other
at
penalties,
and
court.
federal
the
York
recognized
69. were
Morgan
conviction
The
authority
Morgan,
It
The
nob/s
served
346
was
by
remedy
limited
of
346
State
Court
He
majority
material
the
fact.
conviction
U.S.
meant
and
civil
at
U.S.
pled
his
supra
Sixth
for
in
506.
was
may
the noted
.
at rights
.
the
1950.
502,
guilty to
.
to
507.
it
at
was
the
on
writ
that 74
status
applicable
was
776
differently
procedure
fundamental
coram
constitutionality
whether
disagreement
knowing, who
Nigeria.
Department
904,
addressed
S.E.2d
decided
entered
129
of
The
nobis
The
coram
a
Denado
voluntary
S.Ct.
state
to
basis.
military
United
621
its
United
of
a
State,
correct
in
is
limited constitutional
into
think,
conviction
may
that
applicability
writ
the
not
Homeland
2213,
nobis
by
(W.
of
the
Therefore,
a
then
States
court
his
state.
an
of
limited
States
Supreme
be
2010
and
plea
Va.
legal
respondent
errors
modern
error
at
173
un-incarcerated
plea
affected.
applied
2015).
intelligent.
the
had
bargain
was
Ark.
Supreme
errors What
Supreme
to
Security
L.Ed.
errors.
coram
as
of
via
state
jurisdiction
technical
trend
Court
it
a
invalid.”
286,
recently
was
the
for
fundamental
appears
In
involving
As
is
1235
in
level
nobis
so a
writ
entitled
has
Denedo
*3
of
instituted
a
Court
not
While
the
Court
Writ
military
holding,
West
365
(2009).
factual
defendant
as
of
Morgan
as
been
binding
power
was
to
to
of
coram
decided
constitutional
2009
follows:
there
S.W.3d
has
to
entertain
8
be
at
Virginia
Coram
available
to
nature.
court.
procedures
an
errors,
the
911.
the
to
Denado
never
on
at
narrowly
in
was
nobis.
opportunity
remedy
had
West
513.
United
most
894,
Morgan
the
Nobis
which
A
coram
disagreement
overturned
but
State
the
to
states.
number
896
involved
Virginia
deprivations.
recent
expand
address
The
is
to
States
an
alleging
right
held
on
of
a
nobis,
return
(2010)
to
invalid
proper
Court
West
a
Coram
case
of
to
attempt
that
federal
court
an
v.
the
Morgan
years
challenge
certain
there
his
him
Denado,
on
(‘We
American
Virginia
sentence
coram affirmed
to
writ
writ
guilty
summarized
nobis
See
the
address to
to
criminal
later,
was
to
have
to
and
errors
his
show
Court
Grant
nobis
address
include
plea
the
v.
is
556
not
its
native
the
actually
exists,
serviceman
treated
held
Hutton,
the
view
that
that
as
was
U.S.
was
v.
the
that
issue
to
the
are
we
that not found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeaL’); Smith v. United States, 20 A.3d 759, 763 (D.C. 2011) (‘Furthermore, the writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy that can be used to correct a legal or factual error.’); Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52, 77, 760 A.2d 647, 660 (2000) (‘Alongwith the vast majority of appellate courts which have considered the matter, we believe that the [expanded] scope of
coram nobis . . . is justified by contemporary conditions and public policy.’); Gilliard v. State, 446 So.2d 590, 591 (Miss. 1984) (‘[T]here seems to be ample Mississippi precedent that the writ of error coram nobis is available to attack collaterally a judgment of conviction on federal constitutional grounds.’); People v. Poole, 209 N.Y.S.2d 126, 127 (1960) (‘The appellant was afforded a full hearing and he has failed to demonstrate any error or deprivation of a constitutional right entitling him to a writ of error coram nobis.’); State v. Sinclair, 191 Vt. 489, 493, 49 A.3d 152, 155 (2012) (‘[Ujnder the modern-day formulation.. . coram nobis is broad enough to encompass not only errors of fact that affect the validity or regularity of legal proceedings, but also legal errors of a constitutional or fundamental proportion.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). But
see Trujillov. State, 310 P.3d 594, 601 (2013) (‘We decline to . . . expand the writ beyond its common-law scope.’) Hutton at 634.
Some states have statutorily addressed coram nobis and have either abolished or imposed limitations on the availability of the writ. See State v. Blakesley, 989 A.2d
746 (ME 2010); Morris v. State, 918 So. 2d 807 (Miss. App. 2005); T.C.A. § 40-26-1 05
(Tennessee 1 year statute of limitations on coram nobis). Generally speaking, if not addressed by statute, the states allow coram nobis petitions of some kind. It appears that a majority of the states that recognize coram nobis have adopted the Morpan approach. See State v. Sinclair, 49 A.3d 152, 156 (Vt. 2012) citing Skok v. State, 760
A.2d 647, 658-659 (citations omitted) (Md. 2000).
New Hampshire case law is essentially silent on the use of coram nobis for any purpose. In State v. Almodovar, 158 N.H. 548 (2009), the defendant challenged the legality of his sentences. The defendant had served his sentence by the time his case was heard on appeal. This Court specifically inquired as to whether the appeal was
9
errors
based
Humphrey
was
motion
expired
failed
barred
Cunningham,
of
(1988).
habeas
have,
SANTAMARIA’S certainly
II.
case
Hampshire
sentencing
defendant
moot
habeas
THE
claiming
on was
to
on
given
raised
In
from
to
In
The
if
corpus
raise
In
State
direct PASSAGE
alleged
support
dismiss
implied
he
holdings
corpus.
not
Avery,
had
lower
did
collaterally
issues
he
can
his
ineffective
Warden,
the
moot.
v.
appeal.”
had
or
petition.
the
ineffectiveness
establish
Pepin,
trial
it
of
court
for
PETITION
issue
the
did
was
The and,
option
by
completed
its
OF
lack
Almodovar
errors
petitioner
not
concluding
order,
133
specifically
attacking
on
an
Court
assistance TIME
therefore,
159
Pepin,
(Order
of
recognize
to
a
direct
available
N.H.
are
speedy
harmful
N.H.
file
FOR
the
ruled
SHOULD
his
at
was
not
at
claim
a
727 at
appeal.
his
Court
310
that
WRIT
313.
writ
term
did
p.
found
of 549.
the
procedurally
trial.
the
writ.
attempting
constitutional
conviction
7)
(1990),
counsel
(2009),
on
not
of
“claims
petitioner
cited
of
Pepin
use
NOT
OF
While
coram
that
direct
Id.
Avery
feel
10
incarceration.
of
CORAM
at
this Avery
Mr.
PROCEDURALLY
this
of
makes
based
it
coram
729.
after
not
to
appeal,
nob/s
was
at
barred
ineffective
Court
was
Santamaria
Court
raise
error.
142-143.
specifically
v.
the
moot.
on
NOBIS.
it
Cunningham,
nobis,
procedurally if
clear
held
the
in there
by
time
reconciled
his
Humphrey The
a
the
assistance issue
The
trial
motion
that
both
that
However,
for
were
could State
failure
ruling
lawyer
Court
a
Humphrey
BAR
Mr.
of
the
direct
barred future
the
for
responded
have,
competence
131
at
on
Santamaria’s
state
to
MR.
concluded
732. new
of
Avery
in
failing
whether
raise
N.H.
appeal
counsel
Humphrey federal
and
because
and
trial
was
Humphrey
and
those
138
to
should
that
the
or
had
file
not
New
by
the
in
court
the
he
way
a
v. a
States
Part
right
criminal
come for
assistance
avenue
The
states
motion
appellate
evidentiary
regarding
inconsistent
Mr.
appeal.
preference
Court claim
new
1,
plain
is
Santamaria
under
Constitution.
Article
not
as
should
Similarly,
has,
for
trials
for
defendant
State
follows:
meaning
review
statutory,
trial
new
of
addressing
the hearing.
in
is
based
with
counsel
equitable. A
misfortune
15
not
fact,
to
counsel’s
v.
trial.
new
heading
of
could
the
not
of
Thompson,
current
have
is
of
the
consistently
on
an
It
but
trial
lower
constitutionally
raise
New
The
the
is claim.
fundamental
have
New
new
ineffective
been
a
rather
of
justice
RSA
may
ineffectiveness
words
accepted
fundamental
record
an
Hampshire
court
accident,
information,
Hampshire
or
It
rejected
ineffective
be
161
526:1.
grounded
is should
held
has
in
erred
granted
at
a
assistance
N.H.
the
statute
practice
the
constitutional
not
entitled
that
mistake
because
RSA
statute
by
have
right.
507
conclusion
Constitution;
been
assistance
in
in
Ineffective
except
in
holding
11
providing
this
both 526:1
any
(2011).
and raised
to
or
claim
done
make
effective
he
case
case
misfortune.
our
our
for
he
governs
errors
failed
of
this
on
and
the
claim
assistance
it
federal
Therefore,
case
a
could
must
Sixth
the
when
clear
three
direct
claim
most
a
assistance
to
such
trial
further
for
law.
a
be
Amendment
have
raise
that
through
and
year
motion
It
appeal.
on
the
unusual
was
developed
as
is
In
of
the
it
direct
raised
state
axiomatic it
first
an
hearing
window
was
fact,
counsel
not
on
of lower
for
accident,
ineffective
time
direct
circumstances,
counsel.
constitutions.
sufficient
not
appeal
the
the
new
to
through
will
court
on
meant
the
on
does
issues
that
issue
appeal.
trial.
requests
be
direct
mistake
is
United
ruling
every
to
The
not
in
as
an
raised
It
permit
a
an
This
that
the or
claim,
properly
length
conviction
from
order,
wish
With
Santamaria
habeas
and
available
(3)
trial.
and
trial.
of
granted
the
which
years
case
it
Perleyv.
custody,
to
standard
State
The
but does
in
of
The
Finally,
Even
New
challenge
corpus
recognized
only
effect,
delay
counsel
to
of
law
there
based
statute
lower
v.
not
received
him
his
Hampshire
if
if
addressing
the
Roberts,
Kelly,
good
the
Mr.
is
the
says petition.
present
final
is
then
court’s
on
surely
was
writ
was
the
no
lower Santamaria
new
that
time
an
judgment,
120
Mr.
time
a
as
lawfulness
of
aware,
not
91
12
ineffective
a
going evidence
RSA
denying
court
coram
habeas an
A
Santamaria
N.H.
reduction,
the
bar
limitation
month meant
N.H.
habeas
avenue
statute
526:1
to
but
904
to
held
had
RSA
nobis
254
making
corpus
be
of
of
to
sentence
or
tactically
assistance (1980);
corpus
that
brought
their
Mr.
set
he to
an is
allow
(1941).
new
526:1
is
had
was
a
make
served
issue
replete
out
Santamaria’s
Mr.
statutory
was
the
incarceration.
information
eight
a
available
Rautenberq
petition
12
would
chose
by
at
Santamaria this
party
claim
an
no
as
the
of
statute
eight
with
months
ineffective
ineffective
a
longer
counsel
to
remedy
not
Grafton
trial
not
now.
is
holdings
at
reopen
months.
a
was
have
petition
to
or
court
common
writ
v.
available
to
New
could
pursue
case
claim.
Munnis,
for
collaterally
not
County
assistance
assistance
available
been
the
rules
that
Hampshire
excusable
Once
is
available
law.
have
matter
further
law
during
to
applicable.
a
on
House
109
new
him.
In
he
raised
to
to
the
attack
Morgan,
of
claim
correct
N.H.
was
based
the
flawed.
prisoners
at
trial
neglect.
RSA
merits
The counsel
of
the
the
course
released
Corrections. 25
his
should
within
It
Court’s
on
time
534:1.
errors
claim
the
was
(1968);
of
The
grounds
who
claim
In
a
of
three
of
Court
be
not
fact,
in
of
the
the
Mr. a fact and allowed “without the limitation of time.” Morgan at 507. Theoretically, as coram nobis is not dependent on custody, it should be available indefinitely to correct constitutional errors.
The trial court declared that Mr. Santamaria’s ignorance that the remedy was available was an insufficient reason for the delay. The court failed to take into account the reason that Mr. Santamaria filed his petition was because he was facing significant employment-related collateral consequences including an inabilityto travel for employment-related purposes. He has no other remedy at law to alleviate the burden of a felony conviction which he believes was wrongly obtained and continues to stand in his way of livinga “normal” life. That is to include the stigma of the conviction for acts he feels he is not guilty of. He discovered he had a remedy to alleviate the impact his conviction was having on his present employment and other collateral consequences.
Contrary to the Court’s finding, he could not possibly have known that his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation at the conclusion of the trial and he could not have known the precise impact it would have on his future employment. Mr.
Santamaria was not given warnings that he was required to determine if trial counsel was deficient within a set period of time. He had no way of knowing he had an avenue of relief until he later sought new counsel occasioned by the impact of the collateral consequences.
The Court erred by finding that Mr. Santamaria was procedurally barred because he did not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, through a motion for new trial or through a habeas corpus petition while he was incarcerated.
13
of
with
effective
policy
relatively
United
should
Hampshire
possibility
Regardless
impact
as
arms,
ability
consequences.
Constitution.
New
by
CRIMINAL
THEIR
IMPORTANT
CLAIMS
III.
a
is
both
criminal
criminal
ALLOWING
true
Hampshire
concerns
his
to
Mr.
States
include
future
It
ENTIRE
assistance
the
fully
modern
is
OF
with
ability
for
Santamaria
and
beyond
of
PROCEEDINGS.
conviction
New
convictions
ERROR
relief.
carry
sentencings
v.
A
AND
the
all
relief
that
should
felony
Morgan,
to
In
SENTENCE
Constitution
THE
defendants
Hampshire
recognition
fact
get
Mr.
out
debate
of
FUNDAMENTAL
we,
from
counsel.
FOR
USE
that
an
can
urges
conviction
not
Santamaria’s
his
that
as
supra.
fundamental
annulment
should
job
be
the
that
be
New
OF
CRIMINAL
were
the
and
of
who
and
IS
limited
severe
responsibilities
sentence
the
CORAM
the
There
Hampshire
This
GOOD
Court
United
carries
he
the
have
obtained
right
right
ever
and
case,
to
decision
and RIGHT
Sixth
is or
to
DEFENDANTS
technical
been
to
PUBLIC
to
NOBIS
States
has
a
with
constitutional
continues
rule
be
devastating
14
growing
effective
effective
it
Amendment
in
citizens,
is
been
convicted
TO
convicted
that
it
or
violation
can
directly
significant
Constitutions.
TO
switch
COMPETENT
factual
POLICY
coram
served,
and
recognition
to
assistance
ADDRESS
assistance
do
to
carry
of
impacting
WHO
legal
of
jobs
should
of
not
to
errors.
an
nobis
the
new
AND
a
long-term
coram
the
want
crime,
individual’s a
easily,
errors
constitutional
HAVE
public
criminal
be
Part
United
that
of
is
of
RECOGNIZES
CONSTITUTIONAL
COUNSEL
Rather,
our
his
available nobis
justified
counsel
counsel
his
in
the
his
1,
SERVED
collateral
stigma.
ability
citizenry
accord
Article
States
record
right
conduct.
consequences
future.
provides
that
by
is
and
to
in
right
DURING
to
guaranteed
the
with
the
Of
15
would
New
travel,
saddled
bear
on
THE
Even
course,
to of
writ
the
public
the
also his
conduct
claim
at
constitutional
public ability
consequences
criminal
residence
overstated.
information
heretofore
even
constitutionally
(2016).
(2015);
2016
an
160
660.
arrest
U.
should
after
to
The WL
policy,
The
New
an
Pa.
justice
Young
appeal
of
3369419
options,
trial
evidentiary
an
hidden
collateral
resulting
L.
Hampshire
The
be
any
this
errors
individual
Rev.
court’s
of
system.
&
reversed
deficient
or
kind
internet
Court
a
Petersilia,
in
file
financial
criminal
(2016).
1789,
when
the
from
consequences
has
order statutorily
hearing
should
can
has
It
courthouse
legal
and
has
no
convictions severe
1805
is
conviction
loans
denying
and
Keeping
completed
not
(Sotomayor,
other
the
led
representation
on
allow
(2012);
unusual
authorized
should
to
matter
consequences.
the
as
procedural
widespread
CONCLUSION
of
or
the
Mr.
well
Track,
merits
impacts
after
criminal
the
J.
their
provide
should
writ
Santamaria’s
for
as
J.
Jacobs,
15
police
the
post-conviction
an
dissenting)
of 129
consequences
of
sentence.
to
remedy
employment,
his
coram
individual
convictions
passage
be
challenge
dissemination
a
HARV.
station.
path
See
claim.
The
remanded
nobis
is
ineffective
Utah
for
Eternal
citing
L.
of
available.
to
The
a
constitutional
REV.
time
in
pleadings.
for
be
to
immigration
person v.
with
today’s
Chin,
of
widespread
address
Strieff,
Criminal
future
faced
has
1318,
records
assistance
instructions
See
who
The
extinguished
with
world
brushes
579
1341-1352
As
fundamental,
Record,
legal
Skok
New
status,
has
that
collateral
U.S.
a
availability
cannot
matter
of
received
Civil
were
errors
v.
with
to
counsel
33-51
State,
the
Death,
the
be
of of I hereby certify that the written decision of the trial Court concerning these issues
is attached immediately following the signature page.
DATED: July 12, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
Paul Santamaria By His Attorney,
GREEN & UTTER, P.A.
P’hilipH. Utte?Esq., Bar #2603 764 Chestnut Street Manchester, NH 03104 (603) 669-8446
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing has been sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to Stephen Fuller, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, NH 03301-6397, on the 12th day of July, 2016.
Philip H. Utter
Mr. Santamaria requests that Philip H. Utter be permitted 15 minutes of oral argument.
Date Philip H. Utte
16
NHJB-2503-S
C:
(294)
March
Order
Enclosed
Case Case North 3785
Grafton Paul DC.
Haverhill
Number:
Name:
on 02,
Superior V.
(07/01/2011) Petition
Highway
Manchester
764
please Green
Philip
2016 Fitzgerald,
NH Chestnut
Court
H
& find
03774
for
215-1
State
Utter
Utter,
Writ
a
ESQ
NH
copy
997-CR-00568
v.
Street
PA
of
ESQ
Paul
THE
03104
Coram
of
the
()
R.
STATE
court’s
Santarnaria
Nobis
NOTICE JUDICIAL
215-1997-CR-00567
SUPERIOR
order
OF
of
OF
NEW March
17
BRANCH
DECISION COURT
Clerk
David
02, HAMPSHIRE
of P.
Court
2016
Carlson
relative
() to: TTY/TDD http://wwwcourts.statenh.us Telephone: Relay: 1-855-212-1234 (800) 735-2964
alleged
aside
assault,
Robert
of
stitches
The
encounter
State
applicable
ineffective
seeking
GRAFTON,
first
I.
victim
the
University
On
victim
degree
L. On
The
subsequent
in
ORDER
verdict,
to
June
Hemeon,
Factual
his
December
turned
law,
assistance
was
petitioner,
have
was
assault
neck.
17,
ss.
the
when
taken
arguing
cut
physical
1998,
his
Esquire.
to
court
and
ON
Following
6,
in
a
of
by
conviction
an
jury
to
Paul
Attorney
violation
1997,
Procedural
trial
PETITION
DENIES
a
STATE
that
altercation
the
knife
and
trial.
On
counsel.
Santamaria,
Santamaria
the
“there
hospital State
June
the
as
Hemeon
of
Santamaria’s
for
incident, SUPERIOR
OF
Paul
victim
is
RSA
10,
arose
was
of
Background
stated
first
The
FOR
NEW
New
for
1998,
631:1. Santamaria
1
no
was
filed
was
filed
State
18
between
the
degree
V.
treatment
in
evidence
Hampshire
WRIT
Santamaria
attending
At
cut
petition
a State
the
HAMPSHIRE
COURT
a
objects.
motion
trial,
petition
on
assault
indictment
him
indicted
the
submitted
OF
where
Santamaria
for
and
Based
on
a
was
neck
fraternity
a
vacated
for
CORAMNOBIS
behalf
writ
the
Santamaria
he
Docket
convicted
on
and
a
by
victim.
of
writ
in
received
the
of
a
was
carom
therefore,
on
this
sharp
party
Santamaria
pleadings
of No.
represented
the
Ultimately,
of
case
on
corarn
nobis.
at
instrument.
first
thirty-eight
97-CR-568
grounds
one
Plymouth
the that
and
degree
to
count
nobis,
jury
the
set
the
by
the of inconsistent counsel of petition 145 New evidence establish sufficiency court’s appeal, through Paul sentence On September defendant could ineffective N.H. October Hampshire J. On Thereafter, of struck establish eyewitness caused The for reasonable on decision not Santamaria 138(2000). Attorney Twomey, to to that causing December, a of three with support the find 3, used 8, State writ assistance the [the 1998, a bodily 1998, county Supreme the to knife on of that grounds: death evidence, Twomey, deadly Attorney introduced victim] Esquire testimony. permit coram doubt, known a the the challenged the 30, injury finding Santamaria house was of [or] trial court fact” Court
2014, ) with force.” trial nobis evidence (i) a as the filed that Santamaria serious Hemeon to court of police that sentenced evidence and his . trial counsel. [the an corrections. affirmed long . deadly the seeking an could Santamaria, (Mot. object denied he legal was there bodily victim] appeal and counsel officer sufficiency after withdrew did weapon have argued He the sufficient Santamaria to Santamaria’s Santamaria’s counsel. which, Set 2 Santamaria’s was not injury. he have to through contends to initial 19 set Aside been act served the no testify without from that in of used his forth in On evidence New the for the aggressor, relied conviction self-defense. use Verdict to there the his that conviction. as and own December manner a motion, a a Hampshire evidence justification, of twelve jury case an sentence, theory he was upon that testimony, introduced a expert deadly ¶E received and to vacated used, finding insufficient and month there 3—4.) of by On at State 7, find, Santamaria Supreme Santamaria witness. intentionally defense weapon. trial 1998, was the July specifically was stand knowingly ineffective that: on at v. beyond By capable jury Santamaria, and 5, the trial Santamaria, evidence insufficient order 2000, committed that As Court. The grounds the “that to retained filed a to trial trial was dated trial the the On to the a I )
counsel conceded that Santamaria cut the victim’s neck but argued that he was justified
in doing so because he reasonably believed the victim was about to use unlawful deadly
force on him (see Pet. Writ of Coram Nobis 4—7); (2) trial counsel failed to give
Santamaria a meaningful consultation regarding the decision whether to testify by
failing to discuss with Santamaria the details of his potential testimony, failing to assess
the impact of Santamaria’s testimony on trial strategy, failing to prepare Santamaria to
testify through the use of mock direct and cross examinations, and failing to review police reports with Santamaria (see id. at 7—8);and () trial counsel failed Santamaria in the plea bargaining stage of the case because Santamaria “was led to believe that he
stood a reasonably good chance of winning the case” and thus declined the State’s plea
offer. (Id. at 9.)
The State objects to Santamaria’s petition for a writ of corcim nobis, asserting
that coram nobis is not available to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as a
matter of law. Per agreement of the parties, the court ordered that it would consider and rule on whether a writ of corain nobis is available to Santamaria as a procedural matter before hearing and deciding the merits of Santamaria’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. (See Index #55.) II. Discussion
The writ of coram nobis is an ancient common law remedy designed to correct errors of fact “whichhad not been put in issue or passed upon, and were material to the validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself.” United States u. Mayer, 235 U.S.
55, 68 (1914). At common law, the scope of the writ was “extremely narrow.” “State v.
Hutton, 776 S.E.2d 621, 625 (W. Va. 2015) (citation omitted). The writ of coram nobis was availableonly to address errors of fact—noterrors of law—andonly those “matters
20
3
character”
nobis”
limited.”
the
acknowledged
based
district
his
seminal
when
Trujillo,
Hyung
insanity
writ
P.3d
prevented
reasonable
of
Court
constitutional
fact
on
of
594,
the
was
In
as federally,
acknowledgement,
relating
coram
the
United
court
In
Joon
case
Id.
coram
lack
310
unknown
Morgan,
a
under
of
the
noted
United
597—98
writ
common-law
available
entry
at
the
United
P.3d
diligence,
of had
Kim,
United
that
vobis,
States
507—08.
counsel
developed
circumstances
nobis
to
that
remained
defendant
authority
of
States
at
right
the
the
202
to
(Nev.
State
judgment.”
a
might
597
States,
in
Supreme
the
the
include
writ
defendant
defendant’s
P.3d
pursuant
and.
to
writ
federal
The
Supreme
(citations
2013).
writ’s
v.
over
applicant
slowly.
a
of
counsel.
be
to
at
Morgan,
436,445—46
rather
but
coram .
Court
available
grant
clerical where
.
the
the
Court
of
Some
use
“Id.
courts
was
to
brought
It
Court
time a
next
omitted).
archaic
the
346
concluded was
the
at
nobis
in immunity
no
nature
not
346
(quotation
recognized
examples
errors,
the
All
in
the
century,
to
other
defendant’s of
acknowledged
U.S.
utilized
reinvigorated
(Cal.
4
U.S.
state
21
a
was
Writs
vehicle
trial.
correct
time
United
writ
This
that,
the
at
remedy
502
2009).
limited
that
court
of
from
the
Act.
omitted);
503.
See
of
of
by
that
quiet
minority
the
for
if
(1954).”
“errors
States coram
judgment,
the
“the
writ
petition
Id.
Mayer,
to
known
its
relief;
errors
is
The
at
suit.
as
the
period
courts.
challenge
available
at
common
counterpart,
of
extraordinary
early
see
“has
Court
506—
rzobis
Id.
or
writ
of
coram
it
of
for
Despite
by
()
235
was
death
also
ended,
the
not
fact
as
been
13.
of
a
the
alleging
held
and
an
U.s.
1834
law
writ
acknowledged
nobis,
discoverable
most
reviewable
coram
Trujillo
Although
of
error
court,
by
“sound
however
the
this
to
that
of
at
a
when
writ
errors
no
fundamental
a
party,
at
coram
writ
68;
of
nobis
violation
u.
the
early
least
would
means
of
fact
the
reasons”
the
State,
through
People
of
“in
of
federal
coram
and
through
Court
in
nobis
fact,
1954
have
the
so
310
the
of
v. a
Commonwealth,
N.W.2d to
2000),
Grant
Hutton,
expanded
the
989
unless
(quotation
remedy
matters
whether
courts.
was
Federal
State
legal
broad
Therefore,
exist
claims
scope
A.2d
not
v.
proceedings,
while
v.
superseded
for
Because enough
As
891,
is
776
State,
of
Practice
coram
Sinclair,
of
of
746,
based
the
available
and
fact
failing
such,
factual in
the
S.E.2d
other
896
writ the
751
365
to
citations
relief
and
nobis
the
650
on
“{s]tate
and
encompass
wake
(Neb. courts
2012
(holding
of
to
or
S.W.3d
but
error at
Morgan
at
law.”
S.E.2d
federal
available,
coram
is
abolished
all,
Procedure
seek
633—39;
also
of
VT
available
omitted); have
2012);
only.
courts
most
Sinclair,
Morgan, 894,
514,516—17
47,
post-conviction
appropriate
legal
constitutional
holding
nobis
not
followed
state
See,
some
¶8,
Smith
896
by
have
Hyung
§
only
at
errors
624,
see,
to specific
2012
49
the
e.g.,
all
(Ark.
courts
involved
state
encompass
errors
adopted
v.
A.3d
and,
the
(Va.
e.g.,
current
at
of
Joon
VT
relief
Trujillo, United
2010);
650 courts
22
recognize
common-law
requirements, a
statutory
relief if
2007). State
152,
of
47,
constitutional
a
so,
(4th
different
Kim,
fact
matter earlier.
scope
¶9,
States,
Skok have
155
whether
errors statute
310
v.
ed.
that
49
Blakesley,
coram
202 language.
(quoting
of
followed
v.
P.3d of
2011)).
Id.
affect
A.3d
coram of
20
approaches
definition
State,
abolished
federal
it
P.3d
it
both
or
A.3d
at
at
nobis
can
is
()
at
the
3
fundamental
6oi; 760
511
nobis
Morgan’s
Id. not
2010
at
be
493.
C.
fact
criminal
759,
validity
as and
¶10,
used
Wright
446;
coram
A.2d
(quotation
State
binding
to
a
and
in
As
ME
common
763
limited
the
federal
49
to
to
647,
Neighbors
or
law,
approach procedure v.
19,
nobis).
(D.C.
&
address
questions
A.3d whether
proportion.”
regularity
Diaz,
upon
S. 660
¶1120—21,
see,
the
courts
omitted).
law Welling,
2011);
at
As
(Md.
8o8
writ
e.g.,
both
state
and
writ
495
and
the
v.
to
of “is of
(S.D.
alternative
584
failed
51
court
postconviction
could
in
demonstrate
custody
(“[Amy
reasons
among
brought
relief
which
F.3d
United
1575,
reasons”
situations
remains
(holding
custody.”);
N.W.2d
1994)
properly
to
have
249,
from
1577—78
includes
other
avail Despite
States,
exist
error
is
in
unchanged:
for
(“[The
for
defendant
254
waived,
raised the
where
a
873,
that
Sinclair,
for
himself
direct
petition
dismissed
not
things,]
that
relief
judgment”);
315
(1st
the
(iith
not
the
writ
877
he
seeking
a
issues
was
F.2d
Cir.
and
appeal
could
requirement
defendant
attacking
petition,
procedurally
of
of
different
(S.D.
both
Cir.
for
2012
that
coram
reasonably
petition
other
2012)
778,
it
referred
a
not
appropriate
)
1989)
federal
or
1998)
is
VT
(i)
Hutton,
writ
779
“an
have
remedies
the
habeas the
(stating
nobisj
47,
has
a
approaches
for
of
(7th
(quoting
that
more
(stating
conviction
alternative
and
barred
to
petitioner’s
¶
reasonably
no
error
available
coram
776
18,
has
in
Cir.
corpus”);
the
state
other
relief
there
49
usual
when
S.E.
his
6
23
coram
been
from
1963);
petitioner
coram
A.3d Morgan,
nobis);
courts
to
adequate
petition
earlier..
2d
earlier.
is
to
remedy
remedy
he
raised
held
burden
seeking
a
coram
State
at
at
be
nobis
see,
had
three-part
nobis
Hyung
158
continue
639
not
raised
346
Moody
“explain
his e.g.,
for
the
v.
was
.
is
remedy
only.
(holding
(“[A]
coram
.“);
on
to
nobis,
may
Davis,
claims
not
U.S.
a
Joon
chance”);
United
be
while
available
Trujillo,
the
to
writ
test
. claim
v.
(_i
available
not
available;
.
his
limit
nobis
at
available
if
however,
face
Kim,
that
United
during
515
for
of
the
the
States
“be
512);
failure
of
corain
310
N.W.2d
corain
because
Gregory
coram
relief
to
of
202
petitioner
legal
petitioner
employed
where
the
States,
accord
him”
his
P.3d
[and]
v.
and
to
P.3d
one
because
error
George,
nobis
time
nobis
nobis
petition
seek
defendant
205,
at has
a
v.
and
at (2)
limitation
proper
874
601—02
Kiger
shows[,
he
Class,
was
as
may
relief
450—
earlier
“sound
207
relief,
in
trial
valid
“he
was
6767
an
F.2d
to
in
be
a
v. to
habeas
Cunningham,
he
Accordingly,
earlier
conclusion
Santamaria’s
Santamaria this
because
remedy
failing
petition
on
Hampshire
Hampshire.
(emphasis trial,
were
(“The
emphasis
motion
remedy
is
ineffective
explanation
either
corpus now
not
on
to
There relief
available
he
is
in is
seek
appeal
or
of
omitted));
did added)
procedurally
afforded
procedurally
the
and
has
on
arrest
ineffective
obtainable
131 could
Assuming
review
the
is
appropriate
not
assistance
direct
court
that
N.H.
to
virtually
offered
in
trial.
insufficient
(quotation
not
know
of
him”
where
the
by
a
finds appeal,
138,
judgment,
State
defendant have
He assistance appeal
by
without
nature
and
barred.
he
barred
no
143 of
[the
he no
that
therefore
relief
v.
been
had
in that
omitted)).
counsel,
additional
“had
(1988)
to
case or
Lirzgerfelt,
writ
a
because
of
deciding
a
motion Santamaria could or
litigated
ordinary
earlier.
from “[t]he
warrant
claim
valid
a
both
of
law
by
writ
(holding could
coram
the
bring
length
a
knowledge
claim.”
seeking is
other
7
for on
reasons
24
Santamaria
of
that
687
on motion
based
writ
court
the
have,
a
the error,
the
a
nobis]
has
new
petitioner
remedies
S.W.2d
of
coram
petition
of
(Def.’s
extraordinary
entirely
trial
coram the
availability
nonetheless
error,
and
failed
to
explaining
trial,
of or
shall
delay
withdraw
contends
of
the
in
nobis
294,
should
Response
for
or
were
by
the
procedurally
to
on
nobis
a be
issue
in
in
a a
habeas
295
show
facts case,
confined
writ
motion
relief
a
moving
available
of
his
have,
finds
habeas
writ
and
that
a
relief.
(Tex.
coram
¶
of
known
on
plea.”
“sound
sixteen-year
15.)
is
corpus
an
coram
“there
for
a
raised of
that
forward
waived
to.
available
corpus
Crim.
motion
opportunity
to
The
Cf
a
coram
nobis (quotation to
.
Santamaria,
new
Santamaria’s reasons”
.
proceeding.”
nobis
is
matters
court
him
this
Avery
App.
issue
petition.
is
no
for
trial,
in
in
simply
delay. nobis.
at
claim
based
other
finds
a
1985)
for
New
New
the
to
new
v. that
for by
and a
upon
an to
available
The
the coram
therefore
raise
appeal,
a
procedural
general
Ill.
timely
and
it
SO
For
and.
nobis,
properly
appeal
the
rule
DENIES
Conclusion
ORDERED, the
..
requirement
defendant
applicable
the
foregoing
from
writ
before
Santamaria’s
a
will
judgment
has
to
that
not
this
writ
reasons,
“sound
[the]
)
coram
lie of
2 nd
where
of
habeas
court
reasons”
conviction.”
day
nobis
petition
the
the
of
corpus
on
court
relief
claimed
March
for
direct
8
25
for
Hyung
failing
is
that
DENIES
only
a errors
2016.
writ
(jawrence
l’residing
habeas
appeal,
to
available
Joon
seek
could
of
Santamaria’s
Kim,
coram
corpus
appropriate
but
have
when
Justice A.
202
MacLeod,
cannot
failed
been,
nobis.
no
P.3d
other
relief
at
but
petition
serve to
450—51.
remedies
were
earlier
do
Jr. as
So”).l
not,
a
for
is
substitute
“analogous
are
raised
a
The
writ
court
for of