Court Opinion

ID: 9454997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:06:03.313937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:24.689121
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur with the text of the opinion, but except to, any suggestion contained in footnote 2 that the trial court, or this court, by allowing Meyer to remain free on bond deprived itself of jurisdiction to consider his post-conviction motion seeking a new trial.
We observe that a habeas corpus petitioner need not be in physical custody under the sentence which he is attacking in order for the court to entertain the petition and afford relief. See, Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 50-58, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). Section 2255. affords similar avenues of relief to those convicted in the federal courts. See, Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969).
As noted by Trial Judge Miller in denying reconsideration of Meyer’s amended motion for a new trial: “ * * * it is immaterial whether the [original] motion was considered as a § 2255 motion or as a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis”. I agree with Judge Miller. Had the court *1025elected to treat Meyer’s post-conviction application as one for coram nobis relief, incarceration under the sentence and conviction being attacked would not have been a jurisdictional prerequisite. See, United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954).
In my opinion, the absence of incarceration did not deprive Judge Miller, nor does it deprive us, of jurisdiction to: consider the merits of Meyer’s claims.