Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar MARK RICHARD HILLSTROM v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-16 Docket: 9:24-cv-80780-DMM The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mark Richard Hillstrom’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his conviction for transmitting interstate communications containing threats. The court held that relief was unavailable because the legal issue raised—whether the indictment failed to allege a subjective mental state required by *Counterman v. Colorado* and *Elonis v. United States*—had already been “passed upon” during Hillstrom’s prior § 2255 proceedings. The court applied the standard for granting a writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act, which requires that no other remedy is available and that the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character that renders the proceeding irregular and invalid. The court reasoned that although Hillstrom framed his current claim based on *Counterman* rather than *Elonis*, both claims asserted the same fundamental defect: that his indictment failed to charge conduct constituting a crime due to insufficient mens rea allegations. Because *Counterman* reconfirmed the mental state standard established in *Elonis*, the court concluded the issue was not new and had been previously adjudicated, thereby barring relief under the high bar required for this extraordinary remedy. Consequently, Hillstrom’s conviction remains valid, and he is denied any post-conviction relief despite having served his sentence and no longer being in custody. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.