U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1951

Smith v. Reid

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided July 12, 1951 · Edgerton, Prettyman, Proctor

191 F.2d 491; 89 U.S. App. D.C. 272; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2578 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Dale L. Jernberg, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant., '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.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Cagle v. Humphrey (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1953)
Robert F. Bell v. Sam Anderson, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail, and United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1965)
Anderson v. Settle (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1962)
D. L. Birchfield v. United States of America, and David M. Heritage, Warden, Etc. (5th Cir. 1961)
Paul J. Madigan, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California v. Selvie W. Wells (9th Cir. 1955)
United States v. Hayman (Supreme Court of the United States 1952)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

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

. Not counsel representing him on this appeal.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.