Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 1998
Docket97-1442
StatusUnpublished

This text of Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa (Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa, (8th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1442 ___________

Charles A. Trobaugh, * * Movant - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. State of Iowa, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent - Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: January 16, 1998 Filed: February 17, 1998 ___________

Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER,* District Judge. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Charles A. Trobaugh filed a Motion for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis in the district court, arguing that an expired Iowa state court conviction that had been used to enhance his federal sentence should be vacated because of an involuntary guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a due process/equal protection

* The HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. violation during state post-conviction proceedings. The district court1 dismissed the motion, concluding that the writ of coram nobis is not available if the petitioner is still in federal custody, and that the writ may not be used to challenge a state court conviction in federal court. Trobaugh appeals. After careful consideration, we agree with the district court that the writ of coram nobis may not be used to collaterally attack a state court conviction in this manner. Moreover, even if the district court had jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the expired state court conviction in question, “there is no federal constitutional right to collaterally attack a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence on any constitutional ground other than failure to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant.” Partee v. Hopkins, 30 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 1994), applying Custis v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1732 (1994).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The HONORABLE RONALD E. LONGSTAFF, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roosevelt Partee v. Frank X. Hopkins
30 F.3d 1011 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Custis v. United States
511 U.S. 485 (Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charles A. Trobaugh v. State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-a-trobaugh-v-state-of-iowa-ca8-1998.