Head v. United States, No. 84-113.

Docket NºNo. 84-113.
Citation489 A.2d 450
Case DateJanuary 11, 1985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Columbia District

Page 450

489 A.2d 450
James M. HEAD, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES, Appellee.
No. 84-113.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted January 7, 1985.
Decided January 11, 1985.*

Joseph J. Trepel, Silver Spring, appointed by the court, was on the brief for appellant.

Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Michael W. Farrell, Steven D. Gordon, and Laurie J. McBride, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on brief for appellee.

Before NEBEKER, FERREN and ROGERS, Associate Judges.

FERREN, Associate Judge:


A jury convicted appellant of two counts of first-degree felony murder while armed, D.C.Code §§ 22-2401, -3202 (1981), two counts of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, id., four counts of armed kidnapping, id. §§ 22-2101, -3202, and two counts of armed robbery, id. §§ 22-2901, -3202. This court affirmed all but the kidnapping convictions. Head v. United States, 451 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1982). Appellant filed a motion under D.C.Code § 23-110 (1981), and, in appealing the denial of that motion,1 raises for the first time the issue

Page 451

of trial court error in refusing to admit certain evidence for impeachment purposes. Because appellant failed to raise the issue on direct appeal and does not show cause for his failure to do so, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion.

Appellant's conviction was based on an incident of December 4-5, 1977, in which he robbed a service station and shot and killed two of its employees.2 Appellant later called upon one Morton, the employer of the two shooting victims and owner of the gas station, to repay a debt. Morton was a key witness at the trial. The gravamen of appellant's claim on this appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit, for impeachment purposes, two police reports allegedly containing statements by Morton that were inconsistent with his trial testimony.3 Nowhere in his post-conviction motions does appellant show cause for his failure to raise this issue on direct appeal.

Section 23-110 is not designed to be a substitute for direct review. Fields v. United States, 466 A.2d 822, 827 (D.C. 1983) (citations omitted); see United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164-65, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592-93, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) (under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1982), the federal analogue of § 23-110, collateral attack "may not do service for an appeal"; to allow otherwise would "accor[d] no significance whatever to the existence of a final judgment perfected by appeal" (citations omitted)).4 Relief under § 23-110 is appropriate only for serious defects in the trial which were not correctible on direct appeal or which appellant was prevented by exceptional circumstances from raising on direct appeal. Atkinson v. United States, 366 A.2d 450,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • BOYD v. U.S., No. 86-1734
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 7 Enero 1991
    ...collateral attack. Given this court's holding that "§ 23-110 is not designed to be a substitute for direct review," Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C. 1985), it would be strange to treat as waived issues properly raised on direct appeal simply because they had also been raised i......
  • Diamen v. US, No. 96-CO-295, 96-CO-299, 96-CO-301.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 25 Febrero 1999
    ...in the finality of judgments and the conservation of judicial resources. See Doepel, supra, 510 A.2d at 1045; Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C.1985) (requiring a showing of cause and prejudice before a collateral attack will be considered where defendant has failed to raise ava......
  • Watson v. U.S., No. 13796.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 10 Diciembre 1987
    ...on direct appeal are deemed precluded from further litigation by familiar rules governing issue preclusion) with Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450 (D.C. 1985) (where defendant fails to raise available challenge to conviction on direct appeal, defendant may not do so on collateral attack w......
  • Thomas v. US, No. 94-CF-744
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 17 Mayo 2001
    ...to do so and prejudice as a result of his failure.'" Matos v. United States, 631 A.2d 28, 30 (D.C.1993) (quoting Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C.1985) (citation omitted)).3 Indeed, the "abuse of writ" doctrine precludes consideration of "claims not raised, and thus defaulted, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • BOYD v. U.S., No. 86-1734
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 7 Enero 1991
    ...collateral attack. Given this court's holding that "§ 23-110 is not designed to be a substitute for direct review," Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C. 1985), it would be strange to treat as waived issues properly raised on direct appeal simply because they had also been raised i......
  • Diamen v. US, No. 96-CO-295, 96-CO-299, 96-CO-301.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 25 Febrero 1999
    ...in the finality of judgments and the conservation of judicial resources. See Doepel, supra, 510 A.2d at 1045; Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C.1985) (requiring a showing of cause and prejudice before a collateral attack will be considered where defendant has failed to raise ava......
  • Watson v. U.S., No. 13796.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 10 Diciembre 1987
    ...on direct appeal are deemed precluded from further litigation by familiar rules governing issue preclusion) with Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450 (D.C. 1985) (where defendant fails to raise available challenge to conviction on direct appeal, defendant may not do so on collateral attack w......
  • Thomas v. US, No. 94-CF-744
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 17 Mayo 2001
    ...to do so and prejudice as a result of his failure.'" Matos v. United States, 631 A.2d 28, 30 (D.C.1993) (quoting Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C.1985) (citation omitted)).3 Indeed, the "abuse of writ" doctrine precludes consideration of "claims not raised, and thus defaulted, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT