defendant prevails in the civil court where he or she sought collateral relief, that court then issues the writ directing the criminal court pursuant to the terms of the writ. At common law, a proceeding on a writ of error coram nobis was a civil matter proeedurally independent of the underlying judgment being contested. See United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 221 n. 36, 72 S.Ct. 263, 273 n. 36, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952) (explaining that the Reviser’s Note to the federal post conviction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1995), which stated that section 2255 was “in the nature of’ a writ of error coram nobis, meant that “a Section 2255 proceeding, like coram nobis, is an independent action brought in the court that entered judgment.”); State v. King, 191 Kan. 318, 319, 380 P.2d 325, 326 (1963) (<HOLDING>); State v. Turner, 194 Neb. 252, 256, 231
holding same for writ of error coram nobis recognizing the all writs act gives federal courts authority to issue writs of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings where the person is no longer in custody holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner recognizing that under the common law applications for writs of error coram nobis were civil in character recognizing common law rule that the proceedings upon an application for a writ of error coram nobis were like proceedings in habeas corpus regarded as civil in character