Burdunice v. State of Minnesota
- Michael Davis
- 0:20-cv-02215
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Burdunice v. Minnesota, Judge Leung denied review of Burdunice’s state conviction because this federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Lannon Lavar Burdunice’s attempt to challenge his 2011 state-court assault conviction through a coram nobis petition was rejected; the State of Minnesota remains the respondent.
What happened
Lannon Lavar Burdunice asked the federal court to let him file a petition challenging his 2011 state-court assault conviction. The case is Burdunice v. State of Minnesota.
The court said a federal court may sometimes consider this type of request for a federal conviction, but it cannot use it to challenge a state conviction. The court also said that Burdunice must use a habeas petition to challenge the conviction, even if that procedure has its own limits. The court did not decide whether the conviction was valid.
The court denied the motion for leave to file the petition. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
The detailed version
- Burdunice v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:20-cv-02215
- Michael Davis
- Dec. 23, 2020
Background
Lannon Lavar Burdunice asked for permission to file a petition for a writ of coram nobis challenging the validity of a 2011 assault conviction obtained in state court. Coram nobis is an unusual court procedure for asking the court that entered a judgment to correct or reopen it based on a serious legal error.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may, in some circumstances, consider a coram nobis petition challenging a federal conviction. But it held that it lacked jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the matter—when the petition challenges a state conviction. The court relied on decisions explaining that coram nobis is issued by the court that entered the judgment to itself; one court cannot use it to reopen another court’s judgment.
The court said that, to challenge the 2011 conviction, Burdunice must use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure for challenging unlawful custody or detention. The possibility that such a petition could face procedural limits did not provide a basis for using coram nobis instead. The opinion did not decide the validity of Burdunice’s conviction.
Disposition
The court denied Burdunice’s motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of coram nobis. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.