936, 938 (W.D. Mich. 1985) (explaining that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 do not “provide an effective means of collateral attack in all cases” and that coram nobis “fill[s] the gaps”). We reach a similar conclusion. Because the Vermont PCR statute and the criminal rules are silent on the issue, we conclude that the common ving his 1993 sentence, his allegation that the 1993 sentence is being used to enhance a current federal sentence puts him within the ambit of our PCR statute. In the context of a PCR proceeding, defendant can raise the issues referred to in his motion, including the adequacy of the Rule 11 colloquy and the effectiveness of trial counsel. See In re Laws, 2007 VT 54, ¶ 9, 182 Vt. 66, 928 A.2d 1210; Boskind, 174 Vt. at 192, 807 A.2d at 365 (<HOLDING>). Because an alternative remedy was available
holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions holding that challenge to district courts compliance with rule 11 in prior pleas should be done through a pcr proceeding recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay