MICHAEL VAUGHN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Salmon, April 26, 2017,
Coram nobis – A writ of coram nobis requires “collateral consequences” that he or she did not know about at the time the guilty plea was entered.

How do you address a coram nobis claiming that vaginal intercourse doesn’t involve sexual contact without mentioning that it is impossible to have (intentional) vaginal intercourse WITHOUT sexual contact? I don’t want to know about Judge Salmon’s sex life, but… even through the fog of old age he probable should have remembered that much.

In 2003, Vaughn (who was 21) had vaginal intercourse with a young girl (who was 12). He then pled guilty to 3rd-degree sex offense and was sentenced to probation with a requirement to register as a sex offender.

In 2015, he filed a writ of coram nobis claiming that vaginal intercourse didn’t involve “sexual contact.”

Coram Nobis – A writ of coram nobis is available to a criminal defendant who pleads guilty and later learns of a substantial collateral consequence

The Court of Appeals held that a coram nobis requires five factors, which the Court here specifically refuses to summarize.