UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALBERT HOUSTON CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1971-01-14
No. 29042
437 F.2d 444 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the district court correctly denied the motion for a writ of error coram nobis, as there were no fundamental errors that would render the proceeding irregular or invalid.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant, having served his sentence for perjury, filed a motion for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his conviction. The district court dis…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted in the district court of perjury before a United States Commissioner. Appeal to this Court resulted in an affirmance by an equally divided Court sitting en banc. Carter v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 325 F. 2d 697, cert. den. 377 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 1353, 12 L.Ed.2d 308.

The defendant has now served his sentence on the perjury conviction and acknowledges that “all Federal custody and jurisdiction over him ceased in mid-1965.” On July 1, 1969, he filed in the district court a motion for writ of error eoram nobis to vacate his perjury conviction, alleging five separate grounds for such relief. The United States, in opposition to the appellant’s motion, filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, and entered an order, accompanied by written opinion, denying appellant’s motion without a hearing. United States v. Carter, M.D.Ga.1969, 319 F.Supp. 702.

In United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248, it was held by the Supreme Court that relief in the nature of eoram nobis was not abolished by 28 U.S.C.A. 2255, and was available under the all-writs statute, 28 U.S.C.A. 1651(a). The Morgan decision reaffirmed the earlier case of United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129, where the Supreme Court restricted coram nobis relief to those cases where “errors * * * of the most fundamental character” existed; “that is, such [errors] as [would render] the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.”

The district court’s reasoning is sound and its conclusion is correct that there was no error of that fundamental character which permitted the issuance of a writ of coram nobis. This Court is in accord. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw