Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

191 F.2d 491

Docket No. 10880.

Smith v. Reid

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 26, 1951.

Decided July 12, 1951.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-07-12

Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1965

8 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Meyers v. Welch · Meyers v. United States · General Steel Castings Corp. v. Kroese

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-07-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*492Dale L. Jernberg, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.

¶2'Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D. G., with whom George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before EDGERTON, ' PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

¶4PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

¶5After 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 assistance of counsel · Case Law">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.

¶6Later, 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.

¶7The 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.

¶8Affirmed.

/191/f2d/491 · .json · Public domain