Hall v. State (Majority, with Dissenting)
Annotate this Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner’s allegations did not provide a basis for the issuance of the extraordinary writ or were not cognizable in an error coram nobis proceeding.
Specifically, the Court held (1) the arguments Petitioner raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed; (2) Petitioner’s allegations that certain witnesses were coerced into providing statements implicating Petitioner did not fit within the recognized categories for coram nobis relief and did not otherwise provide a basis for the issuance of the writ; and (3) by pleading guilty, Petitioner waived any claim that he was not guilty of the charges.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.