Booker Tecumseh Dockery v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Booker Tecumseh Dockery v. United States

237 F.2d 518, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 1956

Docket7272

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 518 (Booker Tecumseh Dockery 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

Booker Tecumseh Dockery v. United States, 237 F.2d 518, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935 (4th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant was convicted in the court below under two counts of an indictment charging removal and concealment of untaxpaid liquor in violation of the internal revenue statutes. Appellant, who was represented by counsel of his own choosing on the trial, did not appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the court, but sometime later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction. It is elementary that question as to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised *519 upon such a motion, which cannot be used as a writ of review. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack does motion lie under the statute, which was enacted to take the place of habeas corpus in such cases and was intended to confer no broader right of attack than might have been made in its absence by habeas corpus. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195; Caviness v. United States, 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 216. An examination of the record shows, however, that the verdict of the jury was amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant was convicted in the court below under two counts of an indictment charging removal and concealment of untaxpaid liquor in violation of the internal revenue statutes. Appellant, who was represented by counsel of his own choosing on the trial, did not appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the court, but sometime later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction. It is elementary that question as to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised *519 upon such a motion, which cannot be used as a writ of review. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack does motion lie under the statute, which was enacted to take the place of habeas corpus in such cases and was intended to confer no broader right of attack than might have been made in its absence by habeas corpus. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195; Caviness v. United States, 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 216. An examination of the record shows, however, that the verdict of the jury was amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 518, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booker-tecumseh-dockery-v-united-states-ca4-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack