Cases suggest that invoking coram nobis relief is not appropriate where the alleged error could have been raised in previous proceedings, whether direct appeal or habeas review. See Osser, 864 F.2d at 1060 (noting that, in contrast to habeas review under § 2255 where “the natural solicitude of the law to end expeditiously an unjust incarceration exerts a perhaps unacknowledged pressure for expansive review,” in a coram nobis case “sentence has been served and nothing remains but some financial [or other] detriment, [so] judicial incentive to excuse compliance with procedural prerequisites is of a lower order”); cf. Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512 (“Where it cannot be deduced from the record whether counsel was properly waived, we think, no other remedy being then available and sound reasons existing for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief, this motion in the nature of the extraordinary writ of coram nobis must be heard by the federal trial court.”).
In Osser, for example, the Court of Appeals denied coram nobis relief on grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner could and should have raised the legal issue upon which his petition was based on direct appeal some fifteen years earlier. Id. at 1061-62.
In sum, petitioner should set forth and explain the following for the Court’s consideration:
(1) the errors or injustice that he claims infects his conviction;
(2) the continuing consequences or penalties flowing from his conviction; and
(3) whether the issues now raised by petitioner were or could have been raised in previous proceedings (i.e., on direct appeal or in petitioner’s habeas filings).