Kenneth Darnell Williams v. United States

A Petitioner seeking a Writ of Error Coram Nobis 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 01; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental character. This petition presents questions ofjurisprudential significance involving the “more usual remedy,” and actual innocence arguments being raised on writs of error coram nobis that have divided the circuits:

1. Whether a claim of actual innocence is cognizable on a writ of error coram nobis where new evidence of defendant’s innocence is discovered after sentence is served, and whether a credible actual innocence claim on a writ of error coram nobis may allow a defendant to pursue his underlying constitutional claims on the merits notwithstanding the existence of a procedural bar to relief?

2. Whether a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is ineligible ifthe claim could have been raised on a § 2255 motion, as five circuits hold, or a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is eligible as long as a more usual remedy is not available, as seven circuits hold, and whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims are a fundamental error that is cognizable on writ of error coram nobis? -i- PAttTIFS TOr W F. PHOCFFi TJfw'[fig All parties to petitioner’s Eleventh Circuit proceedings are named in the caption of (he case before this Court. LIST OF DIWFCTLV BELATED CASES None. -n-