Court Approves Coram Nobis Relief for Pre-Simmons Conviction

US v. Lesane: In 2003, Lesane pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, his prior felony being a conviction out of North Carolina. Just before Lesane finished his sentence, the Fourth Circuit decided Simmons, which reclassified lots of North Carolina convictions as non-felonies. In 2019, Lesane was convicted on new charges and sentenced to 156 months in prison. During those proceedings, Lesane’s counsel noticed the 2003 conviction and concluded that after Simmons it was no longer valid. In 2020, Lesane filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis seeking to vacate the 2003 conviction. The Government agreed that the prior conviction was no longer valid, but fought the petition on the grounds that Lesane had waited too long to file it and there weren’t sufficient consequences from that conviction to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement. The district court agreed on the first point and denied the petition.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Lesane was entitled to relief. The court surveyed the long history of coram nobis and identified four prongs the must be met for a petitioner to be granted relief. Two were conceded by the Government – that a “more usual remedy is not available” (because Lesane is no longer in custody on the 2003 conviction he cannot initiate a habeas action) and that the “error is of the most fundamental nature” (given that Lesane is no longer guilty of a criminal offense). As to whether “valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier,” the court held that the usual concerns that animated timeliness requirements have little weight where actual innocence is at issue. That is because “there is very little good reason for maintaining an invalid criminal conviction on a person’s record.” In this case, Lesane did not even particularly delay filing, given that Simmons was decided only just before his initial sentence was complete and was not made retroactive until much later. It also noted that Lesane had no specific reason to challenge the old conviction until his new case when “that conviction was used to enhance his sentence.” Finally, as to whether “adverse consequences exist from the conviction to satisfy the case or controversy requirement,” the court held that the fact that the old conviction impacted his new sentence (or could impact future sentences) was sufficient. It rejected the Government’s argument that because Lesane already had a criminal record “it should not make any difference that one of his convictions is for a crime he did not commit.”