Cases pin-citing Hill · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Hill

Cases pin-citing Hill

Hill v. United States  ·  1962  ·  31 pinpoint citations from 11 cases, 11 distinct passages.

United States v. Shaquandis Thurmond  ·  2019-01-29  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 368 U.S. at 424
"[Denial of the right to allocution] is not a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, nor an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure."
State v. PRION  ·  2012-03-20  ·  Utah Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 S. Ct. at 424
"[The narrow function of [the rule] is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to reexamine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence."
People v. Dunlap  ·  2009-04-30  ·  Colorado Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
"[Tlhe narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence."
Stitt v. United States  ·  2007-02-06  ·  E.D. Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
“[I]t conclusively appears from the historic context in which § 2255 was enacted that the legislation was intended simply to provide in the sentencing court a remedy exactly commensurate with that which had previously been available by habeas corpus-”
Shaw v. State  ·  2006-03-24  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
"[t]he failure of a trial court to ask a defendant represented by an attorney whether he has anything to say before sentence is imposed. . . . is an error which is neither jurisdictional nor constitutional"
United States v. Jerry Glenn Tosh  ·  2003-06-03  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
“[T]he narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence”
United States v. Abraham Flores  ·  1993-01-20  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
“[I]t conclusively appears from the historic context in which § 2255 was enacted that the legislation was intended simply to provide ... a remedy exactly commensurate with that which had previously been available by habeas corpus_”
Morrison v. United States  ·  1990-08-16  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
“fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice [or] an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure”
Pedro Ornelas v. United States  ·  1988-03-25  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
“[C]ol-lateral relief is not available when all that is shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements of [Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b) ].”
United States v. William T. Smith, Jr.  ·  1988-03-09  ·  Third Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 368 L. Ed. 2d at 417
"the narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence"
United States v. Billy G. Byers  ·  1984-07-24  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  pin 82 S. Ct. at 468
"[e]ven those nonconstitutional claims that could not have been asserted on direct appeal can be raised on collateral review only if the alleged error constituted ‘a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice’"