Gregory v. Class
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
KONENKAMP, Justice.
[¶ 1.] In this appeal, we must decide if the common law writ of coram nobis is available to review issues which were examined or could have been examined in a petitioner’s earlier post-conviction proceedings. After state and federal habeas applications had been resolved against him, petitioner sought a writ of error coram nobis. Largely, he *875alleged the same arguments that had either been adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in earlier proceedings; Because this special writ may only be used to remedy a profound injustice when a petitioner has no other available remedy,…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- United States v. HaymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Trujillo v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2013
- Piper v. YoungSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- State v. SinclairSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
- Garcia v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
- Whitepipe v. WeberDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.