TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Booker Tecumseh Dockery v. United States

Booker Tecumseh DOCKERY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Dockery v. United States, 237 F.2d 518 (4th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 3, 1956
Docket
No. 7272
Judges
Parker, Soper, Sobeloff
Citations
237 F.2d 5181956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant was convicted in the court below under two counts of an indictment charging removal and concealment of untaxpaid liquor in violation of the internal revenue statutes. Appellant, who was represented by counsel of his own choosing on the trial, did not appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed by the court, but sometime later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate the sentence on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant conviction. It is elementary that question as to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be raised *519 upon such a motion, which cannot be used as a writ of review. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack does motion lie under the statute, which was enacted to take the place of habeas corpus in such cases and was intended to confer no broader right of attack than might have been made in its absence by habeas corpus. Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 195 ; Caviness v. United States, 4 Cir., 226 F.2d 216 . An examination of the record shows, however, that the verdict of the jury was amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11960: 11961: 419592026peak 1961 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Thompson324 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. 1959)
  2. Curtis Harold Link v. United States295 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1961)
  3. United States v. Wiles198 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.W. Va 1961)
  4. Power v. United States192 F. Supp. 201 (M.D.N.C. 1961)
  5. United States v. Tunstell196 F. Supp. 60 (D. Haw. 1961)
  6. United States v. Hopkins187 F. Supp. 165 (D. Maryland 1960)

Most recent

  1. Curtis Harold Link v. United States295 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1961)
  2. United States v. Wiles198 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.W. Va 1961)
  3. United States v. Tunstell196 F. Supp. 60 (D. Haw. 1961)
  4. Power v. United States192 F. Supp. 201 (M.D.N.C. 1961)
  5. United States v. Hopkins187 F. Supp. 165 (D. Maryland 1960)
  6. State v. Thompson324 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dennis v. United States, 177 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1949) 33
Caviness v. United States, 226 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1955) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list