Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

700 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Dayton
  604 F.2d 931· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-18 ·cited 213×
  Failure to strictly comply with Rule 11 does not automatically require vacating a guilty plea, and a harmless error standard should be applied to deviations from the rule.
• Shelton v. United States
  246 F.2d 571· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-25 ·cited 148×
  A later finding that a guilty plea was voluntary is entitled to weight on appeal, and the record supported such a finding despite the defendant's claims of promises.
• United States v. Barker
  514 F.2d 208· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 140×
  The court held that the defendants' guilty pleas should be judged by the 'fair and just' standard, and that their asserted defenses, if proven, would be legally valid, warranting withdrawal of the pleas.
• Scott v. United States
  419 F.2d 264· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-13 ·cited 129×
  A judge's role in plea bargaining should be limited to ensuring the voluntariness of the plea, not ratifying the prosecutor's bargain.
• United States v. Malcolm
  432 F.2d 809· 2d Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 122×
  A guilty plea induced by promises is void, but a prosecutor's promise to recommend leniency does not automatically invalidate a plea. A sentence based on materially untrue assumptions about a defendant's criminal record or cooperation violates due process.
• United States v. Natividad Ocanas
  628 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not err in admitting testimony or denying severance, thus affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Frontero
  452 F.2d 406· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 116×
  The court affirmed convictions for Frontero and Lagaña, but vacated Kelly's conviction due to a Rule 11 violation regarding informing him of the maximum sentence and remanded for Kelly to plead anew.
• United States v. Woodall
  438 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-18 ·cited 116×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision.
• Epifanio Trujillo v. United States
  377 F.2d 266· 5th Cir.· 1967-05-18 ·cited 116×
  A defendant pleading guilty need not be informed of ineligibility for parole, as this is a matter of legislative grace, not a direct consequence of the plea.
• Alphonzo Edwards v. United States
  256 F.2d 707· D.C. Cir.· 1958-05-09 ·cited 116×
  The court should vacate the order denying the motion and remand for a hearing to determine if the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez
  269 F.3d 1250· 11th Cir.· 2001-10-17 ·cited 114×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the Sanchezes. The concurring judges argued that no Apprendi error occurred because the sentences did not exceed the statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). They also contended that the "Rogers error" did not apply bec
• Bryan v. United States
  492 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 109×
  A district court must grant an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless the motion, files, and record conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief. A full Rule 11 transcript is not always conclusive.
• Pilkington v. United States
  315 F.2d 204· 4th Cir.· 1963-03-02 ·cited 106×
  The court held that a defendant's allegations of being misled by the judge regarding the maximum sentence before entering a guilty plea are sufficient to require a hearing on the voluntariness of the plea and potential relief under Rule 32(d).
• United States v. Baylin
  696 F.2d 1030· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 97×
  The court held that a sentencing judge cannot impermissibly infer guilt from a bare government promise not to prosecute, and that Rule 11 does not require advising a defendant of parole guideline consequences.
• Brown v. Beto
  377 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the defendant failed to carry his burden of showing his twenty-five year sentence is constitutionally invalid, and the trial judge exercised sufficient precautions in accepting the guilty plea.
• United States v. Fernandez
  877 F.2d 1138· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the Sentencing Guidelines correctly calculated the offense level based on the full quantity of cocaine seized, not just the amount admitted in the guilty plea, and that the district court fulfilled its obligations under Rule 11 by informing the defendant of th
• United States v. Blackwell
  694 F.2d 1325· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish plain error on appeal due to an incomplete record and the novelty of the constitutional issue raised.
• United States v. Joan
  883 F.2d 491· 6th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 88×
  The court held that an upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was justified based on the defendant's egregious criminal history and threat to public safety, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.
• United States v. Crusco
  536 F.2d 21· 3d Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 86×
  A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if the plea was entered without full knowledge of the consequences due to reasonable misunderstanding of the maximum sentence or if the government breached its promise not to take a position on sentencing.
• United States v. Johnson
  488 F.2d 1206· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 86×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 Plea Colloquy
  The court held that a witness's prior limited testimony and guilty plea do not waive their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a separate trial, and a defendant cannot compel a witness to testify before a jury solely to assert that privilege.
• United States v. Davis
  212 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-22 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his guilty plea without a hearing, as the record did not conclusively refute his claim of attorney misrepresentation.
• Correale v. United States
  479 F.2d 944· 1st Cir.· 1973-06-06 ·cited 80×
  A prosecutor's recommendation of an illegal sentence in exchange for a guilty plea renders the plea invalid, entitling the defendant to relief.
• United States v. Myers
  451 F.2d 402· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 80×
  A defendant must be informed of the impact of 18 U.S.C. § 3568 on the commencement of their federal sentence, as this is a consequence of the plea under Rule 11.
• Domenica v. United States
  292 F.2d 483· 1st Cir.· 1961-06-29 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to vacate the conviction without determining compliance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and 32(a).
• United States v. Blair
  470 F.2d 331· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the jury selection plan was validly interpreted and that the clerk's actions complied with it. It also held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed if the trial court failed to inform him of the maximum penalty before accepting a nolo contendere plea.
• United States v. Laszlo Pomazi
  851 F.2d 244· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ordering restitution, as the amount was not limited by the charging instrument and the government's recommendation did not breach the plea agreement.
• Durant v. United States
  410 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 76×
  The court held that ineligibility for parole is a consequence of a guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, and the district court erred by not informing the defendant of this consequence before accepting the plea.
• United States v. Silverman
  745 F.2d 1386· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, the jury instructions were proper, the subpoena for disciplinary complaints was valid, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not an abuse of di
• Everett v. United States
  336 F.2d 979· D.C. Cir.· 1964-08-14 ·cited 74×
  A defendant should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing if they wish to raise the issue of culpability before a jury, even if they admit the underlying acts.
• United States v. Wills
  881 F.2d 823· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 73×
  The court held that a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), and therefore, failure to inform a defendant of a consecutive sentence at a plea hearing does not violate Rule 11.
• Potts v. Zant
  638 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 72×
• Cleveland Colson v. Lamont Smith
  438 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-21 ·cited 72×
  A voluntary guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects, but a plea induced by ineffective assistance of counsel is involuntary and can be challenged. Statistical evidence of racial disparity in grand jury selection can establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
• Ivers v. United States
  581 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 71×
  The filing of an administrative petition for remission does not, by itself, excuse the government's obligation to commence prompt judicial forfeiture proceedings, but a claimant's actions or concurrence in delay can justify such delays.
• United States v. Michaelson
  552 F.2d 472· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-31 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, and that the plea was taken in substantial compliance with Rule 11.
• Kennedy v. United States
  259 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1958-10-24 ·cited 70×
  The court held that a defendant is bound by the actions of his counsel in entering a plea, even if entered under less than ideal circumstances, provided counsel was competent and the defendant acquiesced.
• Amendments TO THE Florida Rules OF Criminal Procedure
  685 So. 2d 1253· Fla.· 1996-11-27 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted comprehensive amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, including modifications to rules governing pleading captions, pleas, defendant presence, pretrial motions, competence proceedings, insanity defenses, sentencing in capital cases, an
• Smith v. United States
  324 F.2d 436· D.C. Cir.· 1963-10-10 ·cited 68×
  Leave to withdraw a guilty plea was properly denied because the defendant was not prejudiced by any mistaken belief about parole eligibility.
• United States v. Read
  778 F.2d 1437· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the government's letter informing the court of the defendant's post-conviction activities did not breach the plea agreement, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the Alford plea.
• Jewell Wesley Walters v. Harris
  460 F.2d 988· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 66×
  The court held that a prisoner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing where credibility is the central issue, requiring their presence and observation by the judge.
• Frank v. Blackburn
  646 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 65×
  A defendant cannot be punished for exercising their right to trial, but a longer sentence than offered in a rejected plea bargain does not automatically constitute such punishment.
• United States v. Cariola
  323 F.2d 180· 3d Cir.· 1963-10-03 ·cited 64×
  The court held that a plea entered under judicial coercion or without understanding of consequences is invalid, entitling the petitioner to relief.
• United States v. Swaggerty
  218 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1955-01-14 ·cited 64×
  A defendant's disappointment with the length of a sentence is not grounds to withdraw a guilty plea, especially when the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.
• Nardell U. Carter v. McCARTHY
  806 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 63×
• United States v. Capua
  656 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 63×
  Non-constitutional errors that could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be asserted in a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• United States v. Carr
  740 F.2d 339· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 62×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(F)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• Chua HAN MOW v. United States
  730 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate his sentence, as the claims were either procedurally barred, without merit, or not administratively exhausted.
• Ruip v. United States
  555 F.2d 1331· 6th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 62×
  The court held that parole guidelines do not constitute ex post facto laws, their application does not violate Rule 11, and the issue of due process for salient factor score determination was not properly preserved. The court also found that while sentencing judge's expectations
• Castro v. United States
  396 F.2d 345· 9th Cir.· 1968-05-28 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing on Castro's § 2255 application without considering the allegations of counsel's misadvice regarding the consequences of a guilty plea.
• United States v. Papa
  533 F.2d 815· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 60×·via Rule 11 Hearing
  The court held that the Southern and Eastern District indictments charged distinct conspiracies, and the plea bargain on the Eastern District indictment did not confer immunity for the Southern District prosecution.
• Kress v. United States
  411 F.2d 16· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-29 ·cited 60×
  A guilty plea is valid if voluntarily and intelligently made, with understanding of the charges and consequences, and a factual basis, even if the defendant later expresses dissatisfaction with jail conditions or claims ineffective counsel.