700 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the district court's failure to properly inform the defendant of the effects of supervised release and its power to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines constituted a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, rendering the guilty plea involun
-
964 F.2d 16·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-05-26
·cited 4×
A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the defendant's stated reason was a change in strategy after reevaluating the strength of the government's case.
-
963 F.2d 900·
6th Cir.·
1992-05-11
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court's failure to inform the defendant of the elements of the offense and the consequences of supervised release during the plea colloquy constituted a violation of Rule 11 that was not harmless error.
-
959 F.2d 33·
5th Cir.·
1992-04-09
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting the guilty plea and substantially complied with Rule 32(c)(3)(D) regarding disputed facts in the PSR, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not properly before the court.
-
950 F.2d 44·
1st Cir.·
1991-11-27
·cited 4×
The court held that a defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing when his appointed attorney remained present but offered no advocacy, and the defendant repeatedly indicated he was unrepresented.
-
The Ninth Circuit held that the Lacey Act's prohibition on importing fish taken in violation of foreign law applies to foreign regulations, not just statutes, and that the Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power or suffer from vagueness. It also affirmed that m
-
The court held that juvenile adjudications can be used for sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines, and an alleged informal plea agreement is superseded by a later written plea agreement.
-
927 F.2d 389·
8th Cir.·
1991-03-04
·cited 4×
The court held that the Minnesota district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea or in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, as the Florida district court's actions effectively rejected the plea agreement.
-
The trial court erred by admitting DNA evidence without determining the reliability of the FBI lab's testing procedures. The court must hold an expanded pre-trial hearing to assess scientific acceptability, procedural reliability, and potential prejudice.
-
915 F.2d 287·
7th Cir.·
1990-10-04
·cited 4×
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a hearing on a § 2255 motion if the claims are meritless or could have been raised on direct appeal without cause and prejudice.
-
907 F.2d 260·
1st Cir.·
1990-07-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) does not statutorily require pre-trial notification of the government's intent to seek sentence enhancement based on prior convictions.
-
895 F.2d 878·
2d Cir.·
1990-02-05
·cited 4×
A district court's acceptance of a guilty plea will be affirmed if the court adequately informed the defendant of the charges and established a factual basis for the plea, even if there was some initial equivocation by the defendant.
-
The court held that a guilty plea entered in tribal court, which complied with tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA), should not be suppressed in federal court.
-
875 F.2d 444·
5th Cir.·
1989-06-01
·cited 4×
The court held that reducing the special parole term to match the court's erroneous statement at the time of the plea was an adequate remedy for a Rule 11 violation.
-
866 F.2d 1301·
10th Cir.·
1989-02-09
·cited 4×
The court held that when a guilty plea is accepted without full compliance with Rule 11, the plea must be vacated, not partially remanded for clarification.
-
The court held that the conditional guilty plea was improperly accepted because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) and the appellate issues were not clearly defined or dispositive. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is vacated and the case is re
-
The court held that the prior indictment and plea did not bar the subsequent indictment on double jeopardy grounds, nor was there evidence of a promise not to prosecute further in the plea agreement.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera examination of informants, as the defendants failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the government affiant lied. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion
-
An ineligible grand jury foreman does not require dismissal of an indictment if the error is harmless, and a de facto officer's administration of an oath is valid.
-
838 F.2d 993·
8th Cir.·
1988-02-10
·cited 4×
A juvenile's guilty plea must satisfy due process, but a failure to meet every mandate of Rule 11 does not automatically justify collateral relief in a Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act proceeding.
-
828 F.2d 1195·
6th Cir.·
1987-09-21
·cited 4×
A defendant must show a fair and just reason for withdrawing a nolo contendere plea before sentencing; the government's prejudice need not be shown if the defendant's reasons are insufficient. An evidentiary hearing is not required if the proffered reasons do not raise factual is
-
827 F.2d 696·
11th Cir.·
1987-09-15
·cited 4×
The court is bound by precedent to follow the circuit's ruling in Rutkowski, despite factual differences and concerns about its scope.
-
787 F.2d 454·
8th Cir.·
1986-04-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for post-conviction relief and that the United States did not breach the plea agreement.
-
767 F.2d 455·
8th Cir.·
1985-07-10
·cited 4×
A guilty plea generally waives claims of preindictment delay and the court properly accepted the plea under Rule 11.
-
747 F.2d 1089·
6th Cir.·
1984-11-09
·cited 4×
The court held that the petitioner's allegations were not so incredible as to warrant summary dismissal and that an evidentiary hearing was required.
-
The court held that the district court erred in failing to inform the defendant of the availability of appointed counsel if indigent, but disagreed on the remedy.
-
656 F.2d 1101·
5th Cir.·
1981-09-21
·cited 4×
The court held that the inclusion of an individual's name in a factual resume during a guilty plea hearing, without indictment or a finding of relevance to the plea, violated the individual's due process rights by damaging his reputation and economic interests.
-
646 F.2d 336·
8th Cir.·
1981-04-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
637 F.2d 1370·
9th Cir.·
1981-03-02
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant's scheme of passing altered bills, even without representing them as genuine, violated 18 U.S.C. § 472, and that any error in jury instructions regarding 'uttering' was harmless.
-
632 F.2d 1265·
5th Cir.·
1980-12-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court's failure to fully inform the defendant of the perjury risk under Rule 11(c)(5) was harmless error because the defendant suffered no prejudice and was not being prosecuted for perjury.
-
The court held that the arrest was constitutional, the search of the apartment was consensual, and the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
-
627 F.2d 883·
8th Cir.·
1980-08-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court's failure to explicitly inform the defendant that it could not order concurrent state and federal sentences, and its variations from a verbatim recitation of Rule 11 rights, did not invalidate the guilty plea as the defendant was otherwise adeq
-
628 F.2d 1133·
2d Cir.·
1980-08-13
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the denial of the § 2255 motion because a prior panel's ruling established that an evidentiary hearing could cure deficiencies in the original plea colloquy regarding understanding of the charge and factual basis.
-
622 F.2d 1049·
1st Cir.·
1980-06-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the appellant's claims of involuntary guilty plea due to attorney's erroneous parole advice were factually unsupported and thus denied his motion to vacate sentence.
-
587 F.2d 433·
9th Cir.·
1978-12-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court's error in accepting a guilty plea without proper Rule 11 advisement did not warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the error was corrected and the defendant suffered no prejudice.
-
584 F.2d 807·
6th Cir.·
1978-10-06
·cited 4×
A guilty plea breaks the chain of prior constitutional claims, and the record supports the finding of premeditation and effective assistance of counsel.
-
576 F.2d 618·
5th Cir.·
1978-07-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant, having pleaded guilty before the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976, was entitled to have his sentence clarified to provide eligibility for parole under the prior law.
-
572 F.2d 1284·
8th Cir.·
1978-04-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the failure to advise a defendant of the maximum possible special parole term does not constitute manifest injustice required to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant was informed of the maximum imprisonment penalty.
-
565 F.2d 548·
8th Cir.·
1977-11-30
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the sentence without an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively showed the prisoner was entitled to no relief.
-
538 F.2d 722·
5th Cir.·
1976-09-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea proceeding violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-
530 F.2d 1208·
5th Cir.·
1976-04-30
·cited 4×
The court held that the petitioner's claims were frivolous and that the denial of his § 2255 relief was proper, allowing an out-of-time appeal.
-
514 F.2d 923·
5th Cir.·
1975-06-13
·cited 4×
A district court must make an independent assessment of the obscenity of materials before accepting a guilty plea to mailing obscene matter, even if the defendant pleads guilty.
-
493 F.2d 1213·
8th Cir.·
1974-03-04
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant understood the consequences of his guilty plea, satisfying the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11.
-
480 F.2d 681·
6th Cir.·
1973-06-20
·cited 4×
The court held that a pre-McCarthy guilty plea requires a remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the defendant understood the consequences of his plea, as the trial court failed to inquire.
-
474 F.2d 1118·
10th Cir.·
1973-03-16
·cited 4×
The court held that the written plea form and accompanying questions were sufficient to establish a voluntary and knowing plea, even without a full transcript of oral advisement.
-
462 F.2d 1169·
5th Cir.·
1972-07-20
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant's guilty pleas were voluntary and not coerced, and the prosecution's decision to bring felony charges was not improperly influenced by the defendant's refusal to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges.
-
The court held that the appellant's claims regarding a conditional guilty plea, erroneous sentencing information, and judicial prejudice were unsubstantiated and did not warrant overturning the sentence.
-
439 F.2d 325·
8th Cir.·
1971-03-26
·cited 4×
A guilty plea is voluntary even if induced by fear of a harsher sentence, provided the defendant understands the charges and potential consequences.
-
435 F.2d 1278·
10th Cir.·
1970-12-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the record affirmatively showed the nolo contendere plea was voluntarily and understandingly made, despite the district court's failure to strictly comply with Rule 11.
-
437 F.2d 917·
9th Cir.·
1970-11-23
·cited 4×
A prior determination of mental competency, made without an evidentiary hearing, does not preclude a subsequent evidentiary hearing on the issue of competency in a collateral proceeding if special circumstances cast doubt on the prior finding.