SMITH
v.
REID
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not available when a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was an adequate and effective remedy, even if unsuccessful.
Appellant pleaded guilty to housebreaking and larceny and was sentenced. He later filed a motion to vacate the sentence based on ineffective assistanc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Motion To Vacate Sentence) cases and more on FLexlaw
PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.
After plea of guilty and sentence upon an indictment for housebreaking and larceny,1 appellant moved the District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the sentence and to allow withdrawal of the plea. In support of the motion he alleged that he had been induced to enter the plea upon the erroneous and incompetent advice of his attorney,2 and was thereby deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, U.S.Const. Amend. "VI. ‘ The motion was denied as was also a motion for rehearing and finally a motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
Later, after expiration of . .the appeal period, . and without having taken any further steps in the foregoing proceedings in the District Court or this court, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus upon grounds similar to those stated in .the motion to vacate sentence. The petition was denied. This appeal is from the order denying the writ.
The relief, if any, to which appellant may have been entitled was by motion under § 2255. He pursued that remedy, and was unsuccessful. But that procedure was neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Meyers v. Clemmer, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F. 2d 802, certiorari denied, Meyers v. U. S., 339 U.S. 983, 70 S.Ct. 1030, 94 L.Ed. 1387, Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F. 2d 707. His failure does not now entitle him to habeas corpus.
Affirmed.
. As the result of the plea and sentence, the Government dismissed another indictment for similar crimes.
. Not counsel representing him on this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1952)
-
Birchfield v. United States, 296 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1961)
-
Madigan v. Selvie W. Wells, 224 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meyers v. Welch, 179 F.2d 707 (4th Cir. 1950)
- Meyers v. United States, 181 F.2d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Gen. Steel Castings Corp. v. Kroese, 339 U.S. 983 (U.S. 1950)
- Madsen v. Johnson, 339 U.S. 983 (U.S. 1950)