In re Ballard
In re Ballard
Opinion of the Court
This is an original action wherein the petitioner, Lawrence Ballard, seeks a writ of error coram nobis for the purpose of presenting again the facts in connection with a homicide committed by him on May 20, 1921, in Choctaw county, Oklahoma, on account of which the petitioner was tried and convicted for murder on October 29, 1921, in the district court of Choctaw county.
This court has never issued the writ of error coram nobis because it was a common law writ which has been largely superseded by the right given to one convicted of crime to file a motion in arrest of judgment, or a motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence. Gibson v. State, 87 Okla. Cr. 260, 197 P. 2d 310; State ex rel Burford v. Sullivan, 86 Okla. Cr. 364, 193 P. 2d 594; Ex parte Hinley, 94 Okla. Cr. 267, 234 P. 2d 947.
It further appears that the identical question now presented has been heretofore presented by habeas corpus and decided adversely to petitioner. Ex parte Ballard, 93 Okla. Cr. 141, 225 P. 2d 825.
The writ of error coram nobis is denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In Re Ballard.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (Syllabus.) 1. Judgment and Sentence — Writ of Coram Nobis Was Common Law Writ. The writ of coram nobis or writ of error coram nobis was a common law writ which developed in common law procedure because of the absence at that time of the right to move for a new trial, and the right to appeal from the judgment and sentence pronounced against one accused of crime. 2. Same — Office and Functions of Common Law Writ of Coram Nobis Superseded. The right of defendant to file a motion in arrest of judgment, motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence, the right to appeal from a judgment of conviction, another statutory remedies, have superseded the office and functions of the common law writ of coram nobis or writ of error coram nobis.