- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
HARVEY v. STATE
HARVEY v. STATE, No. 43462 (Supreme Court of Mississippi, October 12, 1964)
Factual and Procedural Background
Clyde Harvey, the petitioner, moved in the Circuit Court of Leake County for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis under Miss. Code 1942, Rec., section 1992.5. The motion averred that Harvey had been charged in a justice of the peace court with possession of intoxicating liquor, arrested, released on bail, and thereafter found guilty and sentenced in his absence. He asserted several violations of his constitutional rights and also requested bail pending a hearing on the coram nobis petition. The State moved to dismiss the motions for coram nobis relief and for bail. The Supreme Court addressed whether the motion for leave to file coram nobis relief lies where the conviction had not been affirmed by this Court, and the Court sustained the State's motion to dismiss.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Section 1992.5, Code 1942, a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis may be filed before this Court has affirmed the conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In re Petition of Essie Lee Broom, No. 43,370, decided October 12, 1964, 251 Miss. 25, 168 So.2d 44 | Support for the principle that coram nobis relief under section 1992.5 does not lie before the Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction. | The Court relied on this decision to conclude that, because the Supreme Court had not affirmed the conviction, the motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis did not lie under section 1992.5. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's dispositive reasoning is concise: because this Court had not affirmed the conviction, a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis under section 1992.5 was not available. The opinion cites In re Petition of Essie Lee Broom for the same point. Based on that rule, the Court sustained the State's motion to dismiss both the coram nobis motion and the request for bail pending a coram nobis hearing.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court held that a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis under section 1992.5 does not lie where the Court has not affirmed the conviction, and accordingly the State's motion to dismiss the motions for coram nobis relief and for bail was sustained.
Implications: The direct effect is that Harvey's motions for leave to file coram nobis and for bail were dismissed. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this disposition.
1. Supreme Court — coram nobis — will not lie before affirmance of conviction.
Where Supreme Court had not affirmed conviction, motion would not lie, under Section 1992.5, Code 1942, for leave to file petition for writ of error coram nobis. Sec. 1992.5, Code 1942.
Headnote as approved by Ethridge, J.
Clyde Harvey, petitioner, made a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Circuit Court of Leake County, under Miss. Code 1942, Rec., section 1992.5. It avers that he was charged in a justice of the peace court with the possession of intoxicating liquor, arrested, and after release on bail, was found guilty and sentenced, in his absence. He claims several violations of his constitutional rights. Petitioner also asks for bail pending a hearing on coram nobis.
(Hn 1) Since this Court has not affirmed the conviction, the motion does not lie under section 1992.5. In re Petition of Essie Lee Broom, No. 43,370, decided October 12, 1964, 251 Miss. 25, 168 So.2d 44.
Motion of State to dismiss motions for coram nobis and bail sustained.
All Justices concur.
Alert