WILLIS SMITH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
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 the petition failed to allege grounds for relief because the appellant did not claim prejudice from the missing transcript portions or allege any errors in jury selection or closing arguments.
Appellant, serving a sentence for narcotics violations, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming his direct appeal was incomplete du…
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 Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Willis Smith is serving a fifteen year sentence for violating federal narcotics laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174. Following a trial by jury, this Court affirmed on direct appeal, Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 357 F. 2d 486.
Appellant filed a “petition for writ of error coram nobis” in the trial court claiming that he was denied a fair and complete direct appeal because the trial transcript reviewed on appeal did not include the jury selection proceedings and the closing arguments of counsel. The District Court, treating the petition as a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,1 denied relief for failure to allege grounds upon which relief could be granted.
In his petition appellant did not allege how he was prejudiced by the failure to transcribe those segments of the proceedings. Further, he made no claim of any error whatever in the selection of the jury or in the closing arguments. There being no other allegations upon which relief could be granted, the judgment below is affirmed, 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Affirmed.
. The present case does not present a sitúation where resort to coram nobis is necessary. For a discussion of the availability of coram nobis relief subsequent to the enactment of § 2255 see Currie, Federal Courts (1968) pp. 209-211 and cases cited therein,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dedorise Daniel Doyal v. United States, 456 F.2d 1292 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Smith v. United States, 357 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1966)