Collateral Attack legal definition of Collateral Attack

Defendant-appellant Ruben Delhorno filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis, a rare form of collateral attack on a criminal judgment.
In a 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence, petitioner bears the burden of proving that: (1) the district court imposed a sentence in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose a sentence; (3) the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Because only the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not waived in his plea agreement, only the merits of that claim will be addressed.
The case recently decided by the 1st Circuit is Woodward’s third collateral attack on his convictions and the second one using a writ of error coram nobis.
The court also disagreed with Carlson’s argument that the District Court erred by concluding that its veil-piercing claim constituted an improper collateral attack on the receivership action.
“The trial against the DCJ is a collateral attack on Judiciary and weaponisation of criminal justice,” Orengo said.
order represented an impermissible collateral attack on a
While dismissing the petition, which argued that there was no “rational basis” for the Congress to classify Marijuana under Schedule I, Judge Alkin K Hellerstein said, “By framing their claim in terms of the statutory factors outlined in Section 8 l 2(b) (1), plaintiffs’ lawsuit is best understood as a collateral attack on the various administrative determinations not to reclassify marijuana into a different drug schedule.”
(18.) See Collateral attack, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed.
After Shutts, courts have disagreed whether challenges based on the basic due process elements may be raised by collateral attack in a subsequent proceeding and, if so, how.
to counsel to collateral attack. (62) There, the Court held that the
Finally, the governor’s argument that none of Florida’s capital exonerees had “exhausted their legal remedies” is misleading insofar as those remedies in some cases were achieved after their first round of collateral attack. Most obvious, passage of the legislation with the overwhelming support of pro-death legislators begs the question: What was their intent?
“In sum, Osceola’s action is nothing more than a collateral attack on rates approved by FERC pursuant to settlement agreement that preclude any future challenges to those rates,” Entergy’s motion states.

Leave a Comment