Alexander Morris v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Alexander Morris v. United States

254 F.2d 812, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1958

Docket7618_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 F.2d 812 (Alexander Morris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander Morris v. United States, 254 F.2d 812, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108 (4th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon an indictment for second degree murder in the District Court for the District of Columbia, defendant, with the advice of counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of manslaughter. The plea was accepted and the defendant was duly sentenced. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to have the sentence reduced and several successive motions under § 2255 (28 U.S.C.A. § 2255) to vacate the sentence. All of such motions having been denied, an appeal was taken from the denial of the last one. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave careful consideration to all of the grounds advanced in aid of the several motions and affirmed the denial of the motions. See Morris v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 296, 248 F.2d 618.

The defendant, being now confined in Lorton Reformatory, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As we said in Lampe v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 251 F.2d 465 :

“ * * * The District Judge properly held that he was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition as there was no showing that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of petitioner’s detention. Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711; Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708.”

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Upon an indictment for second degree murder in the District Court for the District of Columbia, defendant, with the advice of counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of manslaughter. The plea was accepted and the defendant was duly sentenced. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to have the sentence reduced and several successive motions under § 2255 (28 U.S.C.A. § 2255) to vacate the sentence. All of such motions having been denied, an appeal was taken from the denial of the last one. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave careful consideration to all of the grounds advanced in aid of the several motions and affirmed the denial of the motions. See Morris v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 296, 248 F.2d 618.

The defendant, being now confined in Lorton Reformatory, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As we said in Lampe v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 251 F.2d 465 :

“ * * * The District Judge properly held that he was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition as there was no showing that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of petitioner’s detention. Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711; Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708.”

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 812, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-morris-v-united-states-ca4-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack