ROBERT W. FOWLER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A subsequent prosecution after a defendant obtains a new trial does not constitute double jeopardy, and a guilty plea waives the right to a speedy trial.
Appellant pleaded guilty to charges of unlawful purchase and sale of heroin after his original conviction was reversed and a new indictment was return…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, appellant attacks the sentence entered on his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with the unlawful purchase and sale of heroin. He had been previously convicted of the same offense after a jury trial. At his instance, we reversed and remanded for a new trial. Fowler v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 310 F. 2d 66.
The original indictment was dismissed upon motion of the government in 1965 and a new indictment, charging appellant with the same offenses, was returned. He thereupon entered his plea of guilty to the charges.
The basis of the attack on the sentence which he is now serving is two-fold. He alleges that the second indictment and trial was approximately two and one half years after the reversal of his original conviction and that this subjected him to double jeopardy and denied him a speedy trial.
A subsequent prosecution after defendant has sought and obtained a new trial does not constitute double jeopardy. See Bryan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 552, 560, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335; United States v. Ball, 1896, 163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300. Cf. United States v. Ewell, 1966, 383 U.S. 116, 121-122, 124, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627. See also Gilmore v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 264 F. 2d 44, cert. den., 359 U.S. 994, 79 S.Ct. 1126, 3 L.Ed.2d 982.
Appellant’s plea of guilty forecloses his allegation that he was denied a speedy trial. His voluntary plea constituted a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F. 2d 75. The issue of the right to a speedy trial is non-jurisdictional in nature. United States v. Doyle, 2 Cir., 1965, 348 F. 2d 715.
The District Court did not err in denying relief to appellant.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tillman v. State, 287 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
-
Grisham v. State, 319 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
-
Borges v. State, 275 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1896)
- United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1966)
- Bryan v. United States, 338 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1950)
- United States v. Doyle, 348 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Fowler v. United States, 310 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1962)
- McCoy Gilmore v. United States, 264 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Kennedy v. United States, 359 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1959)
- Meikle v. New York, 359 U.S. 994 (U.S. 1959)