A petition for writ of coram nobis is the vehicle utilized to correct errors of fact as distinguished from errors of law. A mistaken belief by defense counsel as to the legal consequences of immigration status is a mistake of law and does not meet the criteria for review by coram nobis. Further, as a general proposition, review of constitutional issues is outside of coram nobis and, therefore a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on improper advice regarding the immigration consequences of a plea cannot be asserted via coram nobis. The appropriate means to raise such a claim is by direct appeal or habeas [disagreeing with In re Azurin (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 20].