Court Opinion

ID: 9446332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:52:24.812434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.142908
License: Public Domain

FAHY, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
I agree that the motion to vacate should be treated as a motion for a writ of error coram nobis, and that the District Court has jurisdiction to issue such a writ.1 It is my view also that, as the court assumes without deciding, the right to a hearing on a petition for coram nobis is the same as on a motion under section 2255.
The question then is whether, in the language of section 2255,
“the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief * *
Unless they do conclusively so show, section 2255 provides that the court shall cause notice to be served upon the United States Attorney, and, to revert to the words of the statute, shall
“grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
Were it not for the decisions of this court in Martin v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 248 F.2d 651, and Wilkins v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 322, 258 F.2d 416, in the latter of which Chief Judge Edgerton dissented, I would reverse and remand to the District Court with instructions to grant a hearing and to follow through the procedures prescribed by section 2255 with respect to petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. I concur in affirmatnee solely because I am unable to distinguish the Martin and Wilkins cases on the question of the sufficiency of the allegations to require a hearing in the District Court.

. In addition to United States v. Morgan, cited by the court, reference may also be made to Farnsworth v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 232 F.2d 59.