Smith v. Reid

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. Reid

191 F.2d 491, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 272, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 1951

Docket10880_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 191 F.2d 491 (Smith v. Reid) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Reid, 191 F.2d 491, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 272, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2578 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

After plea of guilty and sentence upon an indictment for housebreaking and larceny, 1 appellant moved the District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the sentence and to allow withdrawal of the plea. In support of the motion he alleged that he had been induced to enter the plea upon the erroneous and incompetent advice of his attorney, 2 and was thereby deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, U.S.Const. Amend. "VI. ‘ The motion was denied as was also a motion for rehearing and finally a motion to appeal in forma pauperis.

Later, after expiration of . .the appeal period, . and without having taken any further steps in the foregoing proceedings in the District Court or this court, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus upon grounds similar to those stated in .the motion to vacate sentence. The petition was denied. This appeal is from the order denying the writ.

The relief, if any, to which appellant may have been entitled was by motion under § 2255. He pursued that remedy, and was unsuccessful. But that procedure was neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Meyers v. Clemmer, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802, certiorari denied, Meyers v. U. S., 339 U.S. 983, 70 S.Ct. 1030, 94 L.Ed. 1387, Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 707. His failure does not now entitle him to habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

1

. As the result of the plea and sentence, the Government dismissed another indictment for similar crimes.

2

. Not counsel representing him on this appeal.

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

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

After plea of guilty and sentence upon an indictment for housebreaking and larceny, 1 appellant moved the District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate the sentence and to allow withdrawal of the plea. In support of the motion he alleged that he had been induced to enter the plea upon the erroneous and incompetent advice of his attorney, 2 and was thereby deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, U.S.Const. Amend. "VI. ‘ The motion was denied as was also a motion for rehearing and finally a motion to appeal in forma pauperis.

Later, after expiration of . .the appeal period, . and without having taken any further steps in the foregoing proceedings in the District Court or this court, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus upon grounds similar to those stated in .the motion to vacate sentence. The petition was denied. This appeal is from the order denying the writ.

The relief, if any, to which appellant may have been entitled was by motion under § 2255. He pursued that remedy, and was unsuccessful. But that procedure was neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Meyers v. Clemmer, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802, certiorari denied, Meyers v. U. S., 339 U.S. 983, 70 S.Ct. 1030, 94 L.Ed. 1387, Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 707. His failure does not now entitle him to habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

1

. As the result of the plea and sentence, the Government dismissed another indictment for similar crimes.

2

. Not counsel representing him on this appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 F.2d 491, 89 U.S. App. D.C. 272, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-reid-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack