Riley v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43269,43269 |
| Citation | 182 So.2d 397,254 Miss. 487 |
| Parties | Ollie RILEY v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John H. Doyle, III, R. Jess Brown, Jack H. Young, Carsie A. Hall, Eddie Tucker, Richard E. Tuttle, Jackson, for appellant.
Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., Jackson, G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Petitioner, Ollie Riley, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Leake County on an indictment under Mississippi Laws of 1958 Chapter 281, Mississippi Code Annotated section 2412.5 (1956), and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary. He appealed to this Court, and the case was affirmed on November 22, 1965, 180 So.2d 321.
He now has filed in this Court a motion which we consider as an application which states that it is filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 1992.5 (1956), and he seeks leave to file a petition for the writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. The motion is both a motion and a brief of five pages in length. It does not comply with the requirements of the statute or the rules of proper pleading. The petition that is proposed to be filed in the trial court does not accompany the motion. Paragraph 2 of section 1992.5 provides:
In all cases wherein a judgment of conviction in a criminal prosecution has been affirmed on appeal by the supreme court, no petition for the writ of error coram nobis shall be allowed to be filed or entertained in the trial court unless and until the petition for the writ shall have first been presented to a quorum of the justices of the supreme court, convened for said purpose either in term time or in vacation, and an order granted allowing the filing of such petition in the trial court.
It is apparent that this paragraph provides that the petition proposed to be filed in the trial court be presented to this Court in order for this Court to determine from the same whether there would be sufficient probability that the result in the case would be changed by the filing of the petition in the trial court.
In order for us to expeditiously and intelligently pass upon applications for the writ of error coram nobis when presented to this Court, we have deemed it necessary and appropriate to adopt Rule 38 of this Court setting out the procedure for application for leave to file petition of writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. The rule adopted by this Court is as follows:
PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS UNDER MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED SECTION 1992.5
Every application for leave to file in the lower court a petition for writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Thigpen
...as to those things shown by the record. This does not comply with Rule 38 of the Supreme Court Rules of Mississippi. Riley v. State, 254 Miss. 487, 182 So.2d 397 (1966). In the case of Willie Albert Smith v. State of Mississippi (Petition for writ of error coram nobis), 434 So.2d 212 (Miss.......
- Fondren v. State
-
Auman v. State
...of this rule constitutes sufficient cause to dismiss his application. For further discussion of this rule see Riley v. State, 254 Miss. 487, 182 So.2d 397 (1966), and Brown v. State, 275 So.2d 103 For the reasons stated, the application for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram n......
-
Brown v. State, 346
...General responded thereto by a motion to dismiss without prejudice. He cites in support of this motion the case of Riley v. State, 254 Miss. 487, 182 So.2d 397, 183 So.2d 819 (1966), as well as Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 38. After consideration of the application and the motion in respo......