—denying writ of coram nobis where defendant could not satisfy his burden of showing that sound reasons explained his failure to seek relief earlier

As in Widi, we assume, without deciding that the writ of coram nobis may be used to correct legal, as well as factual, errors.

The State further maintains that the petitioner's claims are moot because he has completed his sentence, and he is not entitled to coram nobis relief in light of his inability to justify his delay in failing to raise the issue of his competency and seek relief on that basis prior to the filing of his January 2017 petition.

—assuming, without deciding, that "all of the defendant's claims—whether based upon errors of law or fact—are cognizable in a petition for a writ of coram nobis

Given the similarities between writs of habeas corpus and coram nobis, we have analogized the common law writ of coram nobis to habeas corpus relief and considered our habeas corpus procedures to inform our approach to coram nobis proceedings.

In Santamaria and Widi, however, we denied the writ because, in each case, the defendants had no reasonable excuse for not asserting their claims earlier.

We have not yet had the occasion to develop a definitive test or analytical framework to help guide our decision-making on this topic.