State v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 04 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 294.,294. |
| Citation | 56 S.E.2d 646,231 N.C. 341 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. DANIELS et al. |
Bennie Daniels and Lloyd Ray Daniels were convicted in the Superior Court, Pitt County, Clauson L. Williams, J., of first degree murder, and their counsel failed to serve case on appeal within time allowed and sought by certiorari to have appeal sent up, and certiorari was denied, but counsel were advised that petition might be filed in Supreme Court for permission to apply to the Superior Court for a writ of error coram nobis through which, if allowed there, they might be heard on the main features on which they asked for relief, and that appeal would lie to the Supreme Court in event of unfavorable action by the Superior Court.
The defendants then filed a petition for permission to apply to the Superior Court for a writ of error coram nobis, but the Supreme Court in a Per Curiam opinion held that the petition did not make out a prima facie case and denied such petition.
Harry McMullan, Attorney General, Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Herman L. Taylor, Raleigh, for defendants, petitioners.
The defendants were tried at March Term, 1949, of the Superior Court of Pitt County, convicted of first degree murder, the jury not recommending mercy, were sentenced to death, and appealed. Counsel for defendants, having failed to serve case on appeal within the time allowed, sought by certiorari to have the appeal sent up. Certiorari was denied, N.C, 56 S.E.2d 2, defendants not having shown sufficient grounds therefor under the rules and practice of the Court. State v. Daniels, 231 N.C. 17, 56 S.E.2d 2; In re Taylor, 230 N.C. 566, 53 S.E.2d 857; In re Taylor, 229 N.C. 297, 49 S.E.2d 749, q. v.
Counsel for petitioners were advised, however, that petition might be filed here for permission to apply to the Superior Court of Pitt County, where the cause was tried, for a writ of error coram nobis, through which, if allowed there, they might be heard on the main features on which they asked for relief, which included matters dehors the record, and that appeal would lie to the Supreme Court in the event of its unfavorable action. State v. Daniels, supra; In re Taylor, supra; In re Taylor, supra.
The defendants now file a petition for permission to apply to the Superior Court for such a writ. Their petition does not make a prima facie showing of substance which is necessary to bring themselves within the purview of the writ. Citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Allen Speller v. Allen Daniels v. Allen
...does not make a prima facie showing of substance which is necessary to bring themselves within the purview of the writ.'28 231 N.C. 341, 56 S.E.2d 646, 647. After the refusal of the first coram nobis petition, the Supreme Court of North Carolina dismissed petitioner's attempted appeal on th......
-
Daniels v. Allen, 6330.
...was made for such permission, which was denied on the ground that it did "not make a prima facie showing of substance". State v. Daniels, 231 N.C. 341, 56 S.E.2d 646, 647. After the Supreme Court of North Carolina had denied appellants' petition for certiorari and for permission to apply fo......
-
State v. Green, 22
...claim are not for us, but for the trial court. " State v. Daniels, supra (231 N.C. 17 at 25, 56 S.E.2d at 8); State v. Daniels, 231 N.C. 341, 56 S.E.2d 646 (1949). Coram nobis is not a substitute for an appeal. 'Under our practice permission to petition the Superior Court in which the petit......
-
Dantzic v. State
...In re Taylor (II), 230 N.C. 566, 53 S.E.2d 857 (1949); State v. Daniels (I), 231 N.C. 17, 56 S.E.2d 2 (1949); State v. Daniels (II), 231 N.C. 341, 56 S.E.2d 646 (1949); State v. Daniels (III), 231 N.C. 509, 57 S.E.2d 653 (1950). It is noted here that the Taylor and Daniels cases were decide......