UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES G. FERRELL, APPELLANT

4th Cir. | 1970-05-06
No. 13504
Before BRYAN, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
425 F.2d 1302 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1970)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial judge complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the defendant's guilty pleas.


Facts & Procedural History

Charles G. Ferrell pleaded guilty to two indictments charging interstate transportation of false securities. He appealed his conviction, arguing the c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Pleas of guilty were accepted from Charles G. Ferrell by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on two indictments charging the interstate transportation of false securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. The judgments of conviction, with the sentences, are attacked on this appeal as invalid principally for failure of the Court to comply with Rule 11, F.R.Crim. P. As apposite here it reads as follows:
“The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea * * * without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. * * * The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”

Upon examination of the proceedings at arraignment and sentencing we perceive no fault in these steps of the case. In this determination the trial judge adequately observed the procedural prescriptions of Rule ll.1

Other points made on this appeal have been noticed but found insubstantial.

Affirmed.

. Incidentally, the pleas in this case were “accepted” before April 2, 1969, the effective date of McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S, 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). See, Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 833, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw