Harry Nicks v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]he failure to hold a competency hearing when constitutionally required is an error”
• stating that a writ of error coram nobis should be granted \only where extraordinary circumstances are present\
• noting that ‘‘[i]n determin- ing whether to hold a competency hearing, the applica- ble standard does not contemplate that a judge be omniscient, but simply that a trial court rule on the objective facts of which it has knowledge’’
• requiring a coram nobis petitioner to show that he or she continues to “suffer legal consequences from [a] conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ” (emphasis added)
• “[t]here exists an affirmative obligation on the part of the trial court to order a competency hearing when warranted by the evidence.”
• remand to determine whether delay excused where petitioner alleged he was incompetent, indigent and imprisoned throughout 15-year period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).