United States v. Conrad Dickson, No. 16-3059 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Denial of petition for a writ of error coram nobis affirmed without comment; defendant's claims had essentially been considered and denied in a prior Section 2255 motion. [ February 08, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3059 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Conrad Eliot Dickson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: February 6, 2017 Filed: February 9, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Conrad Dickson appeals after the district court1 denied his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he sought to vacate a prior conviction for which he had served his sentence. His petition asserted an ineffective-assistance claim and other claims that were essentially considered and resolved in a prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Following careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Dickson’s petition. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing de novo district court’s legal conclusions in denying coram nobis relief); see also Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1108 & n.5 (2013) (discussing the contours of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and labeling sex-offender registration as one of the “collateral consequences” of a conviction); George v. Black, 732 F.2d 108, 110 (8th Cir. 1984) (determining that accused need only be informed of direct consequences of guilty plea); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (noting that, if sentence has been served, individual may file petition for writ of error coram nobis in attempt to vacate prior conviction, while also holding that a petitioner is not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved in a prior § 2255 motion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, partially adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
