Court Opinion

ID: 9685193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:25:46.881558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.134269
License: Public Domain

Ethridge, J.,
Specially Concurring.
I would dismiss Wheeler’s petition for an order directing the trial court to allow the filing of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, for the reason that the writ does not apply to supervening insanity. By considering the petition on the merits, the controlling opinion, in my view, now for the first time extends coram nobis beyond facts which existed at the time of the trial, and applies the writ to facts arising since the judgment, which is a situation for which it was never designed and in contradiction of all of the established precedents concerning it.
The following limitation on coram nobis is established by all of the authorities both in Mississippi and at common law, and is concisely stated in 31 Am. Jur., Judgments, Sec. 804, page 324: “The appropriate use of a writ of coram nobis or coram vobis is to correct errors preceding the rendition of the judgment, and the general rule is that such a writ is not granted to relieve from consequences arising subsequent to the judgment.” Among the many Mississippi cases so holding are Fugate v. State, 85 Miss. 94, 37 So. 554 (1904); Carraway v. State, 163 Miss. 639, 141 So. 342 (1932); and Powers v. State, 168 Miss. 541, 151 So. 730 (1932).
*162When the legislature enacted Chapter 250, Mississippi Laws of 1952, it expressly recognized the writ of error coram nobis “as heretofore defined by the decisions of the Supreme Court of this State.” In other words, Chapter 250 did not attempt to enlarge the writ. So it left unchanged the rule that coram nobis does not apply to facts arising subsequent to judgment. Chapter 250 simply provided that in order for a person convicted of a crime to file a petition for writ of coram nobis in the trial court, he must first obtain an order therefor by a quorum of justices of the Supreme Court, and established the procedure for obtaining such an order. It was principally designed to provide a screening process for applications such as those which were filed in the Willie McG-ee case, which did not involve supervening insanity.
The only possible basis upon which coram nobis can be held to be available where insanity occurs after judgment is the decision in Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814, 176 So. 743, 121 A. L. R. 258 (1937). But that case did not involve insanity occurring after the judgment, but only a charge of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and at the time of the trial. In Hawie v. State, 121 Miss. 197, 83 So. 158 (1919), and ibid., 125 Miss. 589, 88 So. 167 (1921), it was held that the writ of coram nobis applied to a case of insanity in existence at the time of the trial and conviction, where it was not then known by counsel or the court and was not raised in the trial court. In Mitchell v. State, supra, the Court overruled the decision in the Hawie case that insanity at the time of the trial can later be raised by coram nobis. It was held that after final judgment that issue is res judicata. The Court then said on page 826 of 179 Miss.: “It is only when the insanity has developed and become present since the trial that we leave the door open to suspend a judgment or sentence upon that issue — and we have no such alleged case here. We place the issue of insanity upon the same basis of fact as that found in *163Bennett v. State, 106 Miss. 103, 63 So. 339, and we expressly re-affirm what was said in that case.” (Emphasis added)
In other words, the Court recognized in the Mitchell case that it had no issue there of supervening insanity, and in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Smith, it was again expressly stated that neither the petition nor the evidence raised the issue of insanity arising after judgment. Hence both of the opinions in the Mitchell case expressly recognized that the court had there no issue involved of supervening insanity. That decision simply stated that where such occurs, the Court would “leave the door open” to suspend a judgment upon that issue. But the case did not decide or say that coram nobis would be the proper remedy where the insanity arises after judgment.
Nor do I think that the Court had any intention by the opinion in Mitchell of enlarging by an obiter dictum the scope of the writ. That is clearly confirmed by the above quoted statement in the controlling opinion that the Court placed the issue of insanity “upon the same basis of fact as that found in Bennett v. State,” supra. Bennett had been convicted of bigamy, and filed a petition for writ of coram nobis on the grounds of the existence of certain facts at the time of the trial which were not known to the court, namely, that he had been legally divorced from his first wife and that his second marriage was void. The Court there held that these defenses could not be raised by coram nobis, since they existed at the time of trial and were adjudicated by that judgment. Hence the ratio decidendi of the Mitchell ease is that coram nobis does not apply to insanity existing at the time of trial. The opinions therein point out that the Court was not there concerned with supervening insanity.
The only case prior to the present one in which Chapter 250, Laws of 1952, was involved in any respect *164is Musselwhite v. State, 60 So. 2d 807 (Miss., 1952). Musselwhite was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Court’s opinion does not so state, hut Musselwhite then filed a petition with a quorum of the Judges of this Court for an order permitting him to file petition for coram nobis in the circuit court, and such an order was made. The applicability of Chapter 250 was not there raised or considered. Appellant then filed a petition for a stay of execution with the circuit court, which held a hearing’, at which the trial judge found that petitioner was insane, but limited the stay of execution only pending appeal. On appeal, this Court held that the evidence showed clearly that musselwhite had become insane since his conviction, and that under the due process clause he could not be executed while insane. The Court said that “we avoid any discussion as to the exact procedure here followed.” There had been a trial of the issue of insanity in the circuit court. It was then stated that “the petition . . . was properly presented to the judge before whom he had been tried and whose judgment and sentence, although affirmed by this Court, remained his own.” (Emphasis added). The effect of the last quoted statement in my view is that the Court there said that the correct method of raising supervening insanity was by a petition or motion to the trial court who had rendered the judgment. A fortiori the Musselwhite case did not decide that coram nobis applied to supervening insanity.
In brief, coram nobis is limited to facts in existence at the time of the trial and does not apply to supervening insanity. This is the undisputed general rule, and no Mississippi cases, in my opinion, have held to the contrary, but in fact the Musselwhite decision clearly indicated that we would conform to that rule.
In 49 A. L. R. 804 (1927) is a concise discussion of the cases on “insanity supervening after conviction and sentence of death,” and on the manner of raising that *165question. The cases there discussed show that the established rule is that supervening insanity should be raised in the court imposing the sentence, since such a person is technically in the custody of the court to see that the sentence is executed. 49 A. L. R. 810. To the same effect is 24 C. J. S., Criminal Law, Sec. 1619, page 200.
For these reasons and with deference, I think that the holding of the controlling opinion is in error in applying Chapter 250, Laws of 1952, which has reference only to coram nobis, to a case involving insanity arising after judgment. I can find no precedent or authority to support the extension of the writ of coram nobis to supervening insanity. The rule in the other Mississippi decisions negatives the writ’s application to a case of this type. In my view, petitioner Wheeler’s remedy, if any, was by a petition to the circuit court suggesting insanity, and all of the precedents seem to support that conclusion.
Moreover, by extending the writ of coram nobis to supervening insanity, this court is assuming a jurisdiction which is not appellate or revisory in nature, and those are the areas of our jurisdiction. The result may well be the investing in the Court of one type of original or nisi prius jurisdiction. Accordingly, I respectfully differ from the basis of the controlling opinion. I would dismiss the petition of Wheeler for the reason that we have no jurisdiction of an original petition for coram nobis for supervening insanity. Both the controlling opinion and this one reach the same ultimate result, in that the petition is denied or dismissed, but the difference is that the controlling opinion denies the petition on the merits, and I would dismiss it for the reason that I think we have no jurisdiction to consider it.
*166I concur in the dismissal of the alternative application for a writ of habeas corpus for the reasons set forth in the controlling opinion.
McGehee, C. J., and Kyle and Gillespie, JJ., concur in this opinion.
ON MOTION TO FIX NEW DATE FOR EXECUTION OF SENTENCE
McGehee, C. J.
The appellant, Luther Carlyle Wheeler, was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer death by electrocution. The date fixed for the execution of the sentence by the Circuit Court of Forrest County was July 3, 1952.
On the appeal prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Mississippi the conviction and death sentence was affirmed on March 16,1953, and Friday, May 8,1953, was fixed by this Court as the date for the execution of the' sentence. A suggestion of error was filed in this Court on March 28, 1953, and overruled on April 13, 1953.
Thereupon an appeal was prayed for to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final judgment of this Court, and such appeal was granted by the Chief Justice of this Court on April 20, 1953, as prayed for.
The Supreme Court of the United States, treating the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari denied the same on October 19, 1953, and pursuant thereto a mandate was issued from the Supreme Court of the United States to this Court on December 4, 1953, after a petition for rehearing had been denied.
 The date for the execution of the death sentence of the appellant as heretofore fixed by this Court having passed during the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the said court having taken final action *167thereon as hereinbefore stated, as shown by the mandate of said court issued on the said fourth day of December, 1953, and received and filed by the Clerk of this Court on December 7, 1953, and the Attorney General of Mississippi having filed this motion to set a new date for the execution of the death sentence of the appellant, the same is hereby sustained.
Motion sustained, and Friday, February 5, A.D., 1954, is hereby fixed as the date for the execution of the death sentence of the said appellant, Luther Carlyle Wheeler.
All Justices concur.