Background
Mark Richard Hillstrom appealed the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. He challenged his conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure another person. By the time he filed the writ, Hillstrom had already served his sentence and was no longer in custody. He argued that the indictment failed to charge that he had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements, as required by Counterman versus Colorado.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion. It explained that the writ is an extraordinary remedy available only when no other remedy exists and the error involves a matter of the most fundamental character that has not been passed upon. The court noted that Hillstrom had previously raised a nearly identical claim in his Section twenty-two hundred and fifty-five proceedings under Elonis versus United States. Although Counterman clarified the mental state requirement, it reconfirmed that recklessness, defined as conscious disregard of a substantial risk, was sufficient. Because the material issue in both proceedings was whether the indictment alleged conduct constituting a crime, the court concluded the claim was already passed upon. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for coram nobis relief, confirming that petitioners cannot relitigate claims under new case law if the underlying legal issue was already adjudicated in prior habeas proceedings.