United States v. Morgan (346 U.S. 502)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 4, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 346 U.S. 502 · 74 S. Ct. 247
- Docket
- No. 31
- Argued
- October 19, 1953
- Decided
- January 4, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Reed
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Justice Black, Justice Douglas, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Burton, Justice Reed (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Clark, Justice Minton (wrote), Justice R. H. Jackson
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court. This review on certiorari requires us to decide whether a United States District Court has power to vacate its judgment of conviction and sentence after the expiration of the full term of service. On December 18, 1939, respondent pleaded guilty on a federal charge, in the Northern District of New York, and was given a four-year sentence which he served. Thereafter, in 1950, he was convicted by a New York court on a state charge, sentenced to a longer term as a second offender because of the prior federal conviction, and is now incarcerated in a state prison. As courts of New York State will not review the judgments of other jurisdictions on habeas corpus or coram nobis, People v. McCullough, 300 N. Y. 107, 110, 89 N. E. 2d 335, 336-337, respondent filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis and gave notice of a motion for the writ in the United States District Court where his first sentence was received. Both sought an order voiding the judgment of conviction. The ground was violation of his constitutional rights through failure, without his competent waiver, to furnish him counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458. The District Court in an unreported decision treated the proceeding as a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 and refused relief because it had no jurisdiction as the applicant was no longer in custody under…
Excerpt of a 32,446-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.