HILLSTROM
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Petitioner's petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be denied.
Petitioner sought a writ of error coram nobis, challenging his conviction based on subsequent Supreme Court precedent regarding subjective knowledge o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subjective Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Petitioner, Mark Richard Hillstrom's (“Petitioner") Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis (“Petition”), filed June 26, 2024. (DE 1). The Petition was referred to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman. (DE 5). On July 1, 2025, Judge Matthewman entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Petition be denied. (DE 15). Petitioner filed his objections on July 28, 2025. (DE 19).
I have reviewed the Report, the record, Petitioner's objections, and relevant caselaw. “The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy of last resort available only in compelling circumstances where necessary to achieve justice.” United States v. Mills, 221 F. 3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000). The bar for relief is high, as the writ shall issue only when “(1) ‘there is and was no other available avenue of relief'; and (2) ‘the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been put in issue . . . and which renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Maye v. United States, No. 24-10239, 2025 WL 355012, at *4 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025) (quoting Alikhani v. United States, 200 F. 3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000)).
With these principles in mind, I concur fully with Judge Matthewman's findings as laid out in the Report. Petitioner primarily challenges his conviction based on subsequent Supreme Court precedent, citing Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), for the proposition that the indictment did not establish his subjective knowledge of his statement's threatening nature. As discussed more fully in the Report, Petitioner's attempt is unpersuasive, and has been previously tested and rejected (albeit with a different Supreme Court citation) in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. (Cr-DE 100) (citing Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015)). I held previously that Petitioner's “guilty plea and resulting conviction remain valid . . . because the record establishes that Petitioner admitted to facts demonstrating that he knowingly transmitted a threatening communication and specifically intended for such communication to be a threat as required under § 875(c).” (16-cv-80862, DE 13 at 7). I reaffirm this finding here. I further note that the Eleventh Circuit has also anticipated and rejected Petitioner's Counterman argument, holding that “[t]o the extent the indictment failed to allege that Hillstrom subjectively knew that his communication contained a threat, the proffer supplies the factual basis for inferring that scienter.” Hillstrom v. United States, 760 F. App’x 836, 839 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). For these reasons, and for the reasons explained in Judge Matthewman's well-reasoned Report, I will deny the Petition.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Petitioner's Objections (DE 19) to Magistrate Judge Matthewman's Report are
OVERRULED.
2. Magistrate Judge Matthewman's Report and Recommendation (DE 15) is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis (DE 1) is DENIED.
4. Final Judgment will be issued by separate Order.
SIGNED in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2025.
Donald M. Middlebrooks United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillstrom v. United States, 2025 WL 355012 (S.D. Fla. 2025)…er available avenue of relief'; and (2) ‘the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been put in issue . . . and which renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Maye v. United States, No. 24-10239, 2025 WL 355012, at *4 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025) (quoting Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000)). With these principles in mind, I concur fully with Judge Matthewman's findings as laid out in the Report. Petitioner primarily challenges his…
-
Hatten v. United States (S.D. Fla. 2025)…elief earlier.” Mills, 221 F. 3d at 1204. Petitioner does not even attempt to explain why he failed to raise these claims earlier, nor could he, given he raised them and they were rejected. He does not satisfy the bar needed for relief. Maye v. U.S. 2025 WL 355012 (11th Cir 2025). Accordingly, the instant Petition shall be dismissed as frivolous. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition is Dismissed. This Case is Closed, and all pending motions are Denied as Moot. ⁵ The Clerk sh…1 / 2
-
Hillstrom v. United States (S.D. Fla. 2025)…ble avenue of relief”; and (2) ‘the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Maye v. United States, No. 24-10239, 2025 WL 355012, at *4 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025) (quoting Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000). “Because of the availability of habeas review, the Supreme Court has found it ‘difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case t…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hossein Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2023)
- United States v. Ocie Mills, 221 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Hillstrom v. United States, 2025 WL 355012 (S.D. Fla. 2025)