700 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
767 F.2d 1353·
9th Cir.·
1985-08-07
·cited 6×
The court held that the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his guilty plea was not voluntary due to a misunderstanding of the plea agreement, and that the special parole term provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841 is constitutional.
-
The court held that a criminal contempt conviction for refusing to answer grand jury questions after being granted use immunity does not violate due process or double jeopardy, even if the defendant's prior refusal to cooperate was considered during sentencing for a previous offe
-
738 F.2d 246·
8th Cir.·
1984-06-27
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his sentence without an evidentiary hearing, as the files and records conclusively showed he was entitled to no relief.
-
The court held that special parole is distinct from a sentence of confinement and thus does not count towards the maximum sentence limit in a plea bargain, and that the district court complied with Rule 11 requirements.
-
715 F.2d 453·
9th Cir.·
1983-09-06
·cited 6×
A technical violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 alone does not constitute manifest injustice sufficient to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing.
-
714 F.2d 185·
1st Cir.·
1983-08-02
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the plea was voluntary and the defendant understood the charges.
-
698 F.2d 13·
1st Cir.·
1983-01-10
·cited 6×
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and valid, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to vacate the sentence.
-
693 F.2d 382·
5th Cir.·
1982-11-24
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as the plea was voluntary and the denial was within the court's discretion.
-
688 F.2d 56·
8th Cir.·
1982-09-09
·cited 6×
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to address the Parole Commission's records, but suggested the Commission correct any errors.
-
686 F.2d 628·
8th Cir.·
1982-08-18
·cited 6×
The court held that a guilty plea waives challenges to the indictment under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and that a defendant need not admit participation in every overt act of a conspiracy to be convicted.
-
671 F.2d 147·
5th Cir.·
1982-03-22
·cited 6×
The court held that a collateral attack on a conviction via a Writ of Error Coram Nobis requires a high standard of proof of fundamental rights violations and a showing of present or prospective adverse effect, which the petitioner failed to meet.
-
The dissenting judge believes the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant competent to plead guilty, disagreeing with the majority's assessment.
-
625 F.2d 623·
5th Cir.·
1980-09-10
·cited 6×
A defendant seeking to vacate a guilty plea based on misinformation about the maximum sentence must show prejudice, meaning they would not have pled guilty had they been properly informed.
-
602 F.2d 215·
9th Cir.·
1979-08-13
·cited 6×
The court held that a defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based on a technical violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 if they were aware of the special parole term and do not claim they would not have pleaded guilty had they been properly advised.
-
554 F.2d 203·
5th Cir.·
1977-06-17
·cited 6×
The court held that the pro se petition was sufficient to raise the issue of whether the judge complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by personally addressing the defendant to determine his understanding of the nature of the charge.
-
553 F.2d 1152·
8th Cir.·
1977-04-18
·cited 6×
The court held that a Rule 11 violation does not necessitate vacating a conviction if the defendant was aware of the maximum penalty at the time of the plea.
-
548 F.2d 1380·
9th Cir.·
1977-02-24
·cited 6×
The procedural safeguards of Rule 11 do not apply to probation revocation proceedings under these circumstances.
-
536 F.2d 1257·
8th Cir.·
1976-07-08
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the judgment revoking probation and committing the defendant under the Youth Corrections Act, finding no abuse of discretion or error in accepting the guilty plea.
-
528 F.2d 981·
9th Cir.·
1976-01-14
·cited 6×
A prosecutor appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 515(a) is an 'attorney for the government' under Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(d), but a guilty plea may be invalid if there is no factual basis.
-
523 F.2d 858·
8th Cir.·
1975-10-07
·cited 6×
A failure to comply with the formal requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not, in itself, provide a basis for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
503 F.2d 1333·
8th Cir.·
1974-10-15
·cited 6×
The court held that a defendant must object to the district court's refusal to accept a guilty plea to preserve the issue for appeal.
-
504 F.2d 69·
3d Cir.·
1974-10-03
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the denial of specific performance of the plea bargain but instructed the lower court to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea, given the misunderstanding and potential Fifth Amendment issues.
-
481 F.2d 272·
5th Cir.·
1973-07-06
·cited 6×
-
473 F.2d 1382·
7th Cir.·
1973-02-16
·cited 6×
A guilty plea is voluntary and understandingly entered if the defendant is admonished of the maximum possible sentence, even if the judge fails to explain the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences.
-
468 F.2d 440·
5th Cir.·
1972-10-18
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial judge's remarks, which threatened a perjury conviction if the defendant went to trial and testified consistently with prior statements, improperly coerced the defendant's guilty plea.
-
465 F.2d 875·
6th Cir.·
1972-08-21
·cited 6×
The court held that a defendant's guilty plea must be set aside if the trial court fails to inform them of their ineligibility for parole, as this constitutes a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-
458 F.2d 988·
3d Cir.·
1972-03-08
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court correctly denied the motion to withdraw guilty pleas without an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel.
-
453 F.2d 1334·
10th Cir.·
1972-01-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by not informing the defendant of the consequences of his guilty plea.
-
438 F.2d 106·
5th Cir.·
1971-02-04
·cited 6×
A voluntary and understanding guilty plea, even if resulting from plea bargaining, is conclusive as to guilt and waives prior non-jurisdictional defects. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require a showing of a farce or mockery of justice.
-
428 F.2d 580·
7th Cir.·
1970-06-17
·cited 6×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and knowing, and his constitutional rights were not violated, even if the proceedings did not fully comply with McCarthy guidelines, as McCarthy was not retroactive to pleas entered before its decision.
-
419 F.2d 379·
9th Cir.·
1969-12-08
·cited 6×
The court held that the California kidnapping statute is not unconstitutional and that the trial judge complied with Rule 11 requirements for accepting a guilty plea.
-
404 F.2d 26·
5th Cir.·
1968-11-20
·cited 6×
The court held that the indictment count was not duplicitous and that the guilty pleas were voluntary. The convictions are affirmed.
-
393 F.2d 731·
9th Cir.·
1968-04-12
·cited 6×
The court held that a petition to vacate convictions can be considered under a writ of coram nobis even after sentences have been served, and the appellant is entitled to a hearing on his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to a broken bargain.
-
387 F.2d 838·
7th Cir.·
1968-01-10
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly accepted the defendant's guilty plea and entered judgment, satisfying the requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 32(a)(1).
-
314 F.2d 800·
10th Cir.·
1963-01-02
·cited 6×
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a privileged communication was not prejudicial error, as it could not have affected the disposition of the motion.
-
259 F.2d 611·
9th Cir.·
1958-04-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence was correct because the record, when viewed judicially and in its entirety, demonstrated that the defendant understood the charges to which he pleaded guilty.
-
180 F.2d 209·
7th Cir.·
1950-02-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the defendant's voluntary guilty plea, made with understanding of the charge, was not grounds to withdraw the plea after sentencing, as no manifest injustice was shown.
-
45 F.4th 1325·
11th Cir.·
2022-08-22
·cited 5×
The court affirmed the sentence and restitution order, holding that the rule of specialty and extradition treaty did not bar consideration of Utsick's pre-extradition conduct for sentencing purposes.
-
A guilty plea waives a selective prosecution claim unless it falls under a narrow exception, but a plea induced by a mistaken belief about its effect on preserving such claims is not knowing and voluntary.
-
967 F.2d 264·
8th Cir.·
1992-06-16
·cited 5×
A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing when the alleged recantation is weak, unsupported by direct evidence, and the motion appears to be a tactic to intimidate the victim, especially given the d
-
954 F.2d 182·
4th Cir.·
1992-01-09
·cited 5×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary, his waiver of appellate rights was knowing and intelligent, and he waived his right to appeal the principle of specialty issue by failing to raise it below.
-
Jeopardy did not attach when the district court accepted a guilty plea to a lesser included offense and then rejected the plea without imposing sentence or entering judgment, thus allowing reprosecution on greater charges.
-
537 F.2d 120·
5th Cir.·
1976-08-16
·cited 5×
The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish a single overall conspiracy, rejecting the appellants' argument of a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof.
-
512 F.2d 34·
6th Cir.·
1975-03-13
·cited 5×
The court held that when a defendant claims a guilty plea was induced by a plea bargain involving the sentencing judge, and the judge's version of events is challenged, the motion to withdraw the plea should be heard by a different judge to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
-
505 F.2d 115·
5th Cir.·
1974-12-16
·cited 5×
The court held that the trial court adequately established a factual basis for the guilty plea and that the defendant was sufficiently informed of the consequences, affirming the denial of the motion to vacate.
-
431 F.2d 567·
5th Cir.·
1970-09-17
·cited 5×
The court held that the concurrent sentence doctrine applies, precluding review of the appellant's claims regarding his Dyer Act convictions because they run concurrently with unchallenged counterfeiting convictions.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the district court's single comment regarding the penal consequences of rejecting a plea agreement did not constitute plain error warranting vacatur of the guilty plea. The court found that the defendant fail
-
993 F.2d 249·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-05-25
·cited 4×
The court held that a defendant should almost always be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing if the plea colloquy was not in substantial compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
-
987 F.2d 841·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-03-19
·cited 4×
The court held that a defendant should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea if they received incorrect information about the potential sentence, shared by all parties, which influenced their decision to plead guilty.
-
An express waiver of the right to appeal in a negotiated guilty plea is valid if knowingly and voluntarily made, and a Rule 11 colloquy or Rule 32(a)(2) notice is not a prerequisite to such a finding.