Court Opinion

ID: 9680680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:28.899306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.923997
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR RE-HEARING OR TO TRANSFER
PER CURIAM.
Rule 84.17, V.A.M.R., provides “The sole purpose of a motion for rehearing is to call attention to material matters of law or fact overlooked or misinterpreted by the court . . . Mere reargument of issues determined by the opinion will be disregarded.”
Appellant’s motion does violence to the foregoing rule inasmuch as it constitutes a reargument of the issues determined by our opinion. However, since this is a proceeding in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, and not a Rule 27.26 motion, we take this opportunity to emphasize the limitations of a proceeding in the nature of a writ of coram nobis.
“We are of the opinion that the law does not permit a solemn finding of fact in a judgment of a court to be impeached by oral evidence . . ..” State v. Terrell, 276 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1955). In addition to this limiting language of the Supreme Court of Missouri, the decision of United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954), authorized coram nobis relief from a completed sentence only when there were circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice. And, a petitioner such as appellant, must demonstrate that he is suffering from present adverse legal circumstances in order to invoke coram nobis relief from a sentence already served. United States v. National Plastikwear Fashions, Inc., 368 F.2d 845, 846 (2d Cir. 1966), cert, denied, Greene v. United States, 386 U.S. 976, 87 S.Ct. 1171, 18 L.Ed.2d 136; Stewart v. United States, 446 F.2d 42 (8th Cir. 1971); McFadden v. United States, 439 F.2d 285 (8th Cir. 1971). And, lastly, one seeking this extraordinary writ must state sound reasons for not seeking appropriate earlier relief. McFadden v. United States, supra; Kiger v. United States, 315 F.2d 778 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 924, 84 S.Ct. 270, 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963).
Motion denied.
All concur except HOGAN, J., who concurs in denial of motion for rehearing but is dubitante as to the limitations imposed on relief by the writ of error coram nobis.