United States v. Hamid
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
MACK, Associate Judge:
The government appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellee’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis and reducing his sentence to time served. We affirm.
A writ of error coram nobis is an “ ‘extraordinary remedy’ ” which should be granted “ ‘only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.’” United States v. Higdon, 496 A.2d 618, 619 (D.C.1985) (quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511, 74 S.Ct. 247, 252, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954)). The trial court granted the writ based on the finding that both appellee and his trial lawyer were under…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited38 opinions
- United States v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Townsend v. BurkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- MacHibroda v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Williams v. CallaghanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
- State v. BletschSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Caldwell v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Harris v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Jerome Bradley v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.