Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

447 F.2d 1373

Docket No. 71-1928.

Chavez v. United States

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 24, 1971.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-08-24

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“no possibility of any collateral legal consequences”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hirabayashi v. United States

Relies on Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Byrnes v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-08-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1993

5 federal appellate ·

20197119801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Chambers, Circuit Judge, concurred and filed opinion.

¶2*1374Augustin Flores Chavez, in pro. per.

¶3Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Robert H. Filsinger, Chief, Crim. Div., Robert P. Risso, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellant.

¶4Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Augustin Flores Chavez petitioned the district court for a writ of error coram nobis, challenging the lawfulness of a 1946 federal narcotics conviction. At the time of his petition, appellant was in state prison serving a sentence which had been enhanced as a result of the 1946 prior. Shortly before the hearing scheduled in the district court the state court modified appellant’s sentence by disregarding the challenged federal conviction. Consequently, the district court, on motion of the United States, dismissed the coram nobis action as moot. This appeal followed.

¶7The district court’s dismissal was error. In Byrnes v. United States, 408 F. 2d 599 (9th Cir. 1969) we held that a coram nobis proceeding is not moot merely because the petitioner “had long since served the sentences” imposed as a result of the challenged conviction. We stated that “a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” 408 F.2d at 601, quoting Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). The Government made no such showing.

¶8Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

¶9CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge

¶10(concurring) :

¶11I concur only because of our Byrnes v. United States, 408 F.2d 599, but I suggest the case represents a field from which we should remove ourselves or from which someone should remove us.

/447/f2d/1373 · .json · Public domain