Eddie Lee White v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Eddie Lee White v. United States

328 F.2d 304, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1964

Docket17602_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 328 F.2d 304 (Eddie Lee White v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eddie Lee White v. United States, 328 F.2d 304, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6195 (8th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with our policy of not leaving any attack upon a federal criminal conviction stand open, the appeal now sought to be taken, by the lodging of a notice of appeal in the District Court, from the denial of appellant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis, will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, and the appeal will thereupon be dismissed as frivolous.

We have dealt with previous efforts of appellant to attack his conviction in rulings reported in White v. United States, 8 Cir., 279 F.2d 688 (cert. den. 368 U.S. 935, 82 S.Ct. 374, 7 L.Ed.2d 197), 8 Cir., 303 F.2d 775 and 8 Cir., 307 F.2d 740 (cert. den. 371 U.S. 930, 83 S.Ct. 301, 9 L.Ed.2d 237).

The attack made in the present application is that the complaint filed before the Commissioner was invalid because it did not show that the person making oath thereto had personal knowledge of the facts alleged; that the warrant issued on the complaint was invalid because it did not “show probable cause or charge a crime”; and that the indictment returned against appellant was invalid because “the signature of Mr. Fallon Kelly [the United States Attorney] and Mr. George Kern [presumably the foreman of the grand jury] is plain forgery on the face of the indictment”.

The complaint and the warrant of arrest are without relevancy to or effect upon appellant’s trial, conviction and sentence, since, as his papers disclose, these rest upon proceedings had, and not objected to, under the indictment subsequently returned against him. The charge that the signatures on the indictment are forgeries, and that the indictment thus is fraudulent, is frivolous on its face, (a) in respect to the foreman, from the fact of the grand jury’s return of the indictment and the court’s acceptance thereof, and (b) in respect to-the United States Attorney, from the fact of the indictment having been officially proceeded on by him.

In view of the inability of the grounds asserted to afford a basis for collateral attack by appellant of any nature, we do-not concern ourselves with the question of whether they otherwise might be within the scope of a writ of error coram nobis.

Appeal docketed and dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with our policy of not leaving any attack upon a federal criminal conviction stand open, the appeal now sought to be taken, by the lodging of a notice of appeal in the District Court, from the denial of appellant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis, will be permitted to be docketed without payment of fee, and the appeal will thereupon be dismissed as frivolous.

We have dealt with previous efforts of appellant to attack his conviction in rulings reported in White v. United States, 8 Cir., 279 F.2d 688 (cert. den. 368 U.S. 935, 82 S.Ct. 374, 7 L.Ed.2d 197), 8 Cir., 303 F.2d 775 and 8 Cir., 307 F.2d 740 (cert. den. 371 U.S. 930, 83 S.Ct. 301, 9 L.Ed.2d 237).

The attack made in the present application is that the complaint filed before the Commissioner was invalid because it did not show that the person making oath thereto had personal knowledge of the facts alleged; that the warrant issued on the complaint was invalid because it did not “show probable cause or charge a crime”; and that the indictment returned against appellant was invalid because “the signature of Mr. Fallon Kelly [the United States Attorney] and Mr. George Kern [presumably the foreman of the grand jury] is plain forgery on the face of the indictment”.

The complaint and the warrant of arrest are without relevancy to or effect upon appellant’s trial, conviction and sentence, since, as his papers disclose, these rest upon proceedings had, and not objected to, under the indictment subsequently returned against him. The charge that the signatures on the indictment are forgeries, and that the indictment thus is fraudulent, is frivolous on its face, (a) in respect to the foreman, from the fact of the grand jury’s return of the indictment and the court’s acceptance thereof, and (b) in respect to-the United States Attorney, from the fact of the indictment having been officially proceeded on by him.

In view of the inability of the grounds asserted to afford a basis for collateral attack by appellant of any nature, we do-not concern ourselves with the question of whether they otherwise might be within the scope of a writ of error coram nobis.

Appeal docketed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.2d 304, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-lee-white-v-united-states-ca8-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack