DOUGLAS ONICK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by the trial court's failure to inform the defendant of his ineligibility for parole.
Defendant pleaded guilty to drug charges and received concurrent sentences. He later moved to vacate his sentence, arguing his guilty pleas were not v…
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 Parole Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804; 5 Cir.R. 18.
Douglas Onick pleaded guilty to charges of possessing and selling heroin and marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 4705(a) and 4744(a). He was sentenced on November 16, 1961, to three terms of twenty years and one term of ten years, all to run concurrently.
In this motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he contends that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and understandingly made because the trial court failed to inform him that his sentence would not be subject to parole. The district court denied relief on the authority of Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F. 2d 266, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 899, 88 S.Ct. 224, 19 L.Ed.2d 221. In Trujillo, we held that Fed. R.Crim.P. Rule 11 does not require that the defendant be informed of his ineligibility for parole before a guilty plea can be accepted. We reaffirmed that holding in Sanchez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 494. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCHESNEY v. Henderson, 482 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Donner Joseph LeBLANC v. Henderson, 478 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Ladner v. Henderson, 438 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Epifanio Trujillo v. United States, 377 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Kayton v. Wainwright, 389 U.S. 899 (U.S. 1967)
- Trujillo v. United States, 389 U.S. 899 (U.S. 1967)
- Sanchez v. United States, 417 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1969)