United States v. Michael J. Peter

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “habeas corpus has long been available to attack convictions and sentences entered by a court without jurisdiction”
• holding that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged conduct “that, as a matter of law, was outside the sweep of the charging statute”
• holding that the failure to state an offense is an error so fundamental that it cannot be waived by a guilty plea and warrants a writ of error coram nobis
• recognizing that the extraordinary writ of error coram nobis is available only “when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in custody, as is required for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”
• observing that § 2255 relief is not available to a person who is no longer in custody
• holding that an indictment charging “only ... specific conduct that, as a matter of law, was outside the sweep of the charging statute” suffered from a jurisdictional defect that could be challenged at any time without incurring a more-rigorous standard of review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).