HENRY WILLIAM THERIAULT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1968-03-05
No. 25038
390 F.2d 657 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases

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.


Holding

Relief under the All Writs Statute or coram nobis is unavailable to attack a state court conviction for which the sentence has been fully served.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought to set aside a state court conviction for grand larceny, alleging denial of counsel. The sentence for this conviction had been comple…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of coram nobis or other relief under the “All Writs Statute”, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We affirm.

The appellant petitioned the district court to set aside his 1960 conviction for grand larceny because the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, allegedly refused to appoint counsel to represent him, an indigent defendant. The appellant has completed service of that sentence and is not in any way restrained of his liberty because of it.

The appellant has not exhausted his state remedies on his above stated contention. We conclude, however, in any event, that the relief which he seeks in federal court is unavailable to him.

The appellant seeks to invoke the “All Writs Statute”, which provides in part that federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law”. On the basis of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), the district court may have had habeas corpus jurisdiction while the appellant was serving the state sentence, but such jurisdiction was never invoked; . and the appellant is not now confined nor controlled by authority of that sentence. Cf. United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 1964, 330 F. 2d 303, cert. denied 377 U.S. 998, 84 S.Ct. 1921, 12 L.Ed.2d 1048.

Coram nobis has traditionally been a proceeding in a court to attack a judgment of that court for error of fact. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954). The appellant, however, is not attacking a judgment of the United States district court, but that of a Mississippi state trial court. Compare United States v. Morgan, supra, and United States v. Forlano, 2 Cir., 1963, 319 F. 2d 617, with Gillespie v. United States, 6 Cir., 1967, 376 F. 2d 414.

Two other Circuits have held that coram nobis is not available in federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment. Thomas v. Cunningham, 4 Cir., 1964, 335 F. 2d 67; Rivenburgh v. State of Utah, 10 Cir., 1962, 299 F. 2d 842. We agree.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw