UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KEITH BUTLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

6th Cir. | 1991-07-29
No. 91-5190
Before BOGGS, Circuit Judge; LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge; and CLELAND, District Judge.
938 F.2d 702 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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 failure to advise a defendant of the right to appeal a sentence requires vacation of the sentence and remand for resentencing with proper notice.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and appealed his conviction and sentence. The defendant was advised of hi…

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

The defendant appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence entered upon his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The judgment was entered upon the district court’s docket on September 27, 1990. At that time the district court advised the defendant of his right to appeal an earlier order which denied his motion to suppress evidence. It appears from excerpts of the transcript before this court, however, that the district court did not specifically advise the defendant of his right to appeal the sentence. See Fed.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(2). No notice of appeal was filed until January 25, 1991, when the defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

A show cause order was entered for the defendant to state why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. The defendant’s attorney responds that the defendant was never advised of his right to appeal the sentence. The government responds that the defendant was advised of his right to appeal and that the purpose of Fed.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(2) has been fulfilled.

This court has held that the failure to advise a defendant of the right of appeal requires vacation of the sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing and notice as to the right of appeal. United States v. Smith, 387 F. 2d 268 (6th Cir.1967). Upon resentencing a new period for appeal commences. However, the defendant’s failure to immediately file an appeal even though advised of the right may be deemed a waiver of the right of appeal. See Kruse v. United States, 422 F. 2d 849 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 399 U.S. 932, 90 S.Ct. 2265, 26 L.Ed.2d 802 (1970). In the instant case the defendant clearly had notice of the right to appeal the suppression issue, but failed to file a timely appeal or to obtain an extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction in any appeal from the denial of the motion to suppress. With respect to the sentencing issue, however, we cannot determine that the defendant was notified of his right to appeal the district court’s sentence. Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing with notice to the defendant of his right to appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that the sentence in this case is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court which is instructed to resentence and advise the defendant of his right of appeal with respect to the sentence. On resentencing, a new period for appeal will commence. See Fed. R.App.P. 4(b).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw