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. Saldana
  731 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 8×
  A defendant seeking collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a Rule 11 violation must demonstrate actual prejudice, not just a technical failure of compliance.
• United States v. Cooper
  725 F.2d 756· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot, and the district court did not err in denying the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively showed the appellant was entitled to no relief.
• United States v. DeROBERTIS
  718 F.2d 209· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the state trial judge promised a specific sentence in exchange for the guilty plea.
• United States v. Scott
  688 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 8×
  A Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to re-examine errors occurring prior to the imposition of sentence, and issues not raised in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• United States v. Ackerman
  619 F.2d 285· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 11 claim but vacated the denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Al Bucchino
  606 F.2d 590· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was not deficient regarding forfeiture and that the sentence was properly imposed, and that the guilty plea complied with Rule 11.
• Lambert v. United States
  600 F.2d 476· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-06 ·cited 8×
  A technical violation of Rule 11 is insufficient for § 2255 relief unless it results in a complete miscarriage of justice or unfair procedure.
• United States v. Conrad
  598 F.2d 506· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-06 ·cited 8×
  A district court's failure to inform a defendant of the possibility of prosecution for perjury under Rule 11(c)(5) does not entitle the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea if the plea was otherwise voluntary and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
• United States v. Gray
  584 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 8×
  Failure to comply with Rule 11's mandatory procedures, specifically the inquiry into plea bargaining, obligates the court to allow the defendant to plead again.
• United States v. Aldridge
  553 F.2d 922· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's failure to strictly follow Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting the appellant's guilty plea warrants reversal of the conviction.
• Weisser v. Ciccone
  532 F.2d 101· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-09 ·cited 8×
• Phillips v. United States
  519 F.2d 483· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 8×
  A guilty plea taken without the judge personally addressing the defendant regarding constitutional rights and the consequences of the plea does not comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Burroughs v. United States
  515 F.2d 824· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the use of a written guilty plea form, supplemented by oral dialogue, satisfied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11's requirement that the court address the defendant personally.
• Guthrie v. United States
  517 F.2d 416· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district judge failed to adequately establish the factual basis for the plea and ensure the defendant understood the charges against him, as required by Rule 11.
• D'Allesandro v. United States
  517 F.2d 429· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-01 ·cited 8×
  A district judge cannot set aside a valid guilty plea and resentence a defendant outside the time limits of Rule 35, even if the judge later perceives confusion or wishes to alter the sentence.
• Bunyan L. Kendrick v. State
  308 So. 2d 152· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-02-07 ·cited 8×
  Kendrick pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and resisting arrest without violence. On appeal, the court reversed the aggravated assault conviction because the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea, particularly where the defendant denied possessing the kn
• Onesimo Limon-Gonzalez v. United States
  499 F.2d 936· 5th Cir.· 1974-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as the guilty plea was validly accepted and no evidentiary hearing was required.
• James H. Church v. State
  299 So. 2d 649· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-07-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the record affirmatively showed a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea, thus the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment and sentence was proper.
• Parker v. Ross
  470 F.2d 1092· 4th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 8×
  A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, entered with the advice of counsel, waives the right to challenge the composition of the grand jury that indicted the defendant.
• United States v. Ready
  460 F.2d 1238· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 8×
  A defendant's guilty plea is valid even if the court does not explicitly inform them of the right to confront accusers, as this right is implicitly waived by pleading guilty.
• Mathis v. Hocker
  459 F.2d 988· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a sentencing judge is not required to advise a defendant of parole eligibility when the defendant concealed prior convictions.
• United States v. Obie Diah Strother
  458 F.2d 424· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Murray Offen
  439 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's contentions were without merit and not timely raised, affirming the district court's refusal to set aside the conviction.
• United States v. Dudley E. G. Antoine
  434 F.2d 930· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly, the record did not establish a factual basis for the plea as required by Rule 11.
• United States v. RAY
  431 F.2d 1177· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept the appellant's guilty plea to a lesser included offense.
• Jarrett v. United States
  423 F.2d 966· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ruling that the petitioner's confession was voluntary and that his guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, thus denying his motion for post-conviction relief.
• Hansen v. Mathews
  424 F.2d 1205· 7th Cir.· 1970-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding his guilty plea being involuntary, unknowing, or impeached were without merit, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• Robins v. United States
  413 F.2d 1290· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and made with an understanding of the charge, satisfying Rule 11 requirements at the time of entry.
• Roeth v. United States
  382 F.2d 96· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-24 ·cited 8×
  A voluntary and unqualified guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects, precluding appeal of prior rulings.
• Weed v. United States
  342 F.2d 971· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a motion to vacate a sentence based on claims of involuntary plea due to duress, where such claims are outside the record, requires a hearing.
• Ellis v. United States
  313 F.2d 848· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence without a hearing, as the record did not demonstrate the plea was voluntary and understood.
• Singleton v. Clemmer
  166 F.2d 963· D.C. Cir.· 1948-03-01 ·cited 8×
  A district court's refusal to accept a nolo contendere plea under Rule 20 is not a denial of due process, as Rule 11 consent is still required.
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  968 F.2d 835· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the majority's distinction between de jure and de facto guilty pleas, focusing on labels rather than substance, is flawed and undermines constitutional protections.
• United States v. Horne
  987 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• United States v. Saenz
  969 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's error in misstating the minimum term of supervised release was harmless and did not entitle the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Bell
  966 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 6×·via Rule 11 Colloquy
  A defendant's guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects, including speedy trial claims, unless a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) is properly entered and preserved.
• Holloway v. United States
  960 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Holloway's motion to vacate his sentence, as the Rule 11 violation was harmless error and his claims of judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• United States v. DeFUSCO
  949 F.2d 114· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's guilty plea was valid because the trial court adequately complied with Rule 11, the plea was voluntary, and a sufficient factual basis existed. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not properly raised on direct appeal.
• United States v. Garcia-Garcia
  939 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 6×·via Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)
  The court held that the district court's complete failure to advise the defendant of the possibility or effect of supervised release during the guilty plea colloquy was not harmless error because the potential restraint on liberty exceeded the maximum penalty advised.
• Palacios v. United States
  932 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the imposition of a supervised release term was not a constitutional or jurisdictional error cognizable under § 2255, and the petitioner was not denied his right of allocution.
• United States v. Suraphan Tuangmaneeratmun
  925 F.2d 797· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court erred by failing to explain the effect of supervised release, this error was harmless because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The court also held that the district court was not required to explain the application
• Valencia v. United States
  923 F.2d 917· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 6×
  A guilty plea is not knowing and intelligent if the defendant is not informed of all essential elements of the charged offense, particularly when the court and prosecution also appear to misunderstand the jurisdictional requirements.
• United States v. Ferguson
  918 F.2d 627· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct the judgment and commitment order, finding that Rule 36 relief is limited to clerical errors and that the defendant's claims were not properly raised or meritorious.
• United States v. Sabino del Rosario
  902 F.2d 55· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The majority holds that counsel's failure to warn a defendant about potential deportation consequences of a guilty plea does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, even if the trial judge found otherwise.
• United States v. Scott
  884 F.2d 1163· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that an appeal challenging the sufficiency of a dismissed indictment is moot after a guilty plea to a subsequent information, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• United States v. Runck
  817 F.2d 470· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a Rule 11 violation regarding restitution notice is not grounds for withdrawal of a guilty plea if the defendant cannot show prejudice or that they would have pleaded differently.
• United States v. Cannon
  807 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The district court exceeded its authority under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d) by sua sponte setting aside a valid guilty plea, ordering a new trial, and entering a judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Russo
  801 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions to vacate convictions, holding that the subsequent prosecution did not violate the terms of the prior plea agreements.
• Horace v. Louie L. Wainwright
  781 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Raetzsch
  781 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-05 ·cited 6×
  An unsupported allegation of an unkept plea bargain does not merit an evidentiary hearing when the plea statements to the contrary were not given under oath, especially when raised late and inconsistent with prior statements.