700 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
428 F.2d 447·
5th Cir.·
1970-04-20
·cited 4×
The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence was proper because the defendant received an evidentiary hearing and the McCarthy rule, which requires setting aside pleas not in compliance with Rule 11, applies prospectively.
-
425 F.2d 244·
7th Cir.·
1970-03-31
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as the issues had been previously decided on the merits and the petitioner failed to appeal that prior decision.
-
411 F.2d 656·
9th Cir.·
1969-05-15
·cited 4×
The court held that a second motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on the same grounds as a prior motion already decided on the merits, need not be entertained if the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits.
-
409 F.2d 745·
5th Cir.·
1969-03-28
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court's denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was not clearly erroneous, and the sentence imposed was valid.
-
407 F.2d 1102·
4th Cir.·
1969-03-06
·cited 4×
A district judge's failure to adequately inquire into the voluntariness of a guilty plea and inform the defendant of potential penalties constitutes a violation of Rule 11, requiring remand for a hearing.
-
392 F.2d 520·
2d Cir.·
1968-04-08
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing.
-
378 F.2d 296·
5th Cir.·
1967-05-31
·cited 4×
The court held that the guilty plea was entered voluntarily with understanding of the charges and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
-
365 F.2d 310·
6th Cir.·
1966-08-30
·cited 4×
The court held that a district judge's determination that a guilty plea was voluntary and understood, based on the entire proceeding, satisfies Rule 11, even if not explicitly framed in the rule's exact language.
-
338 F.2d 605·
7th Cir.·
1964-11-12
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and were based on substantial evidence and credibility determinations.
-
256 F.2d 936·
4th Cir.·
1958-06-12
·cited 4×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was validly accepted, as the record demonstrated he understood the nature of the charge and the plea was voluntary, despite the trial court's potentially insufficient explicit inquiry.
-
The court held that the defendant's confession was admissible, the jury instruction error was harmless, and the denial of a sentence reduction was not clearly erroneous. The Judgment and Commitment Order contained a clerical error requiring correction.
-
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that the government did not violate immunity agreements, evidence was admissible despite Miranda issues, forfeiture was supported, and speedy trial rights were not violated.
-
993 F.2d 1435·
9th Cir.·
1993-05-20
·cited 2×
The court held that a guilty plea induced by a district judge's improper participation in plea negotiations and coercive statements is involuntary and must be vacated.
-
A voluntary and intelligent guilty plea waives the right to challenge the conviction on grounds that an inoperable firearm is not a 'firearm' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) or that the factual basis for the plea was insufficient.
-
988 F.2d 712·
7th Cir.·
1993-03-10
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was valid and his sentence was properly calculated, affirming the district court's decisions.
-
A district court is not required to conduct a second Rule 11 colloquy when a defendant equivocates about a guilty plea after the initial hearing; the decision to address such equivocation is within the court's discretion.
-
969 F.2d 1073·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-06-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a guilty plea solely because the defendant refused to incriminate a co-defendant, but found the error to be harmless as the defendant was ultimately convicted of the same offense.
-
The dissenting judge believes the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
942 F.2d 196·
3d Cir.·
1991-08-09
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the sentence, but the concurring judge expressed concern that mandatory minimum sentences can lead to unduly harsh outcomes for first-time offenders who are not major participants in drug transactions.
-
937 F.2d 1514·
10th Cir.·
1991-07-02
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty plea and that the plea was knowing and voluntary, despite a technical violation of Rule 11 regarding the mention of supervised release.
-
914 F.2d 608·
4th Cir.·
1990-09-24
·cited 2×
The court held that the circumstantial evidence provided a sufficient factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea to RICO conspiracy charges, and his plea was voluntary despite the government's failure to disclose the linked nature of his and his father's pleas.
-
901 F.2d 1475·
8th Cir.·
1990-04-30
·cited 2×
A formal violation of Rule 11 does not automatically entitle a defendant to relief on collateral attack; the defendant must demonstrate that the violation resulted in a jurisdictional or constitutional error, a miscarriage of justice, or violated the demands of fair procedure.
-
831 F.2d 779·
8th Cir.·
1987-10-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's guilty pleas were valid and should not be set aside, as no manifest injustice would occur.
-
794 F.2d 727·
D.C. Cir.·
1986-07-03
·cited 2×
The magistrate's finding that the defendant raised insanity as a defense was not clearly erroneous.
-
792 F.2d 498·
5th Cir.·
1986-06-20
·cited 2×
A trial judge has no affirmative duty to inform a defendant of the option to plead not guilty by reason of insanity before accepting a guilty plea, provided the defendant is represented by counsel who has advised them of such options.
-
787 F.2d 465·
9th Cir.·
1986-04-11
·cited 2×
The court held that a defendant's awareness of a special parole term immediately after pleading guilty, and his failure to object prior to sentencing, cures the procedural error of not being informed before the plea.
-
The court held that the defendants' conduct, involving receiving a rebate for freight transportation, violated 49 U.S.C. § 11903(a), as the recodification of the Elkins Act did not remove rebating from its prohibition and the defendants' brokerage activities were a sham.
-
665 F.2d 1003·
11th Cir.·
1982-01-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the factual basis presented for the guilty plea was insufficient to establish that the defendant traveled in interstate commerce in furtherance of an extortion scheme.
-
665 F.2d 58·
4th Cir.·
1981-12-03
·cited 2×
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.
-
618 F.2d 702·
10th Cir.·
1980-04-08
·cited 2×
Technical violations of Rule 11 that do not result in a miscarriage of justice are not grounds for vacating a guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-
600 F.2d 780·
9th Cir.·
1979-07-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the government may prosecute under either of two overlapping statutes, and a defendant waives the right to claim error regarding pretrial procedure noncompliance by failing to object at trial.
-
590 F.2d 1338·
5th Cir.·
1979-03-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by not informing the defendant of the nature of the offense charged.
-
588 F.2d 1090·
5th Cir.·
1979-02-02
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of relief on the Rule 11 claim, finding the plea colloquy adequate, but ordered a limited remand to determine if a detainer was filed under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
-
574 F.2d 854·
5th Cir.·
1978-06-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the defendant's enhanced sentence was validly imposed after proper resentencing procedures were followed, and his arguments regarding procedural defects and sentence severity were without merit.
-
541 F.2d 507·
5th Cir.·
1976-10-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the factual basis for the guilty plea.
-
516 F.2d 824·
4th Cir.·
1975-06-03
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and that the sentence imposed was proper and within statutory limits.
-
505 F.2d 957·
5th Cir.·
1974-12-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11's requirement to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea.
-
474 F.2d 1003·
8th Cir.·
1973-03-01
·cited 2×
The court held that a federal prisoner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging a guilty plea as involuntary due to coercive circumstances was properly denied.
-
469 F.2d 222·
8th Cir.·
1972-11-14
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
-
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, despite claims of drug influence, and that his counsel was effective.
-
452 F.2d 132·
7th Cir.·
1971-11-23
·cited 2×
A full evidentiary hearing was not necessary for the district court to deny the motion because the motion and record conclusively showed the defendant was not entitled to relief.
-
448 F.2d 726·
4th Cir.·
1971-09-29
·cited 2×
A guilty plea, if voluntary and knowing, is binding even if later case law might have supported a different outcome.
-
446 F.2d 59·
6th Cir.·
1971-07-07
·cited 2×
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to vacate sentence filed directly in the appellate court.
-
437 F.2d 431·
8th Cir.·
1971-02-02
·cited 2×
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and the Rule 20 proceeding was validly conducted.
-
436 F.2d 303·
D.C. Cir.·
1970-12-17
·cited 2×
A defendant may plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid risking punishment for a greater offense, even if they maintain innocence.
-
429 F.2d 1310·
9th Cir.·
1970-08-04
·cited 2×
The denial of a writ of coram nobis is affirmed because the rule in McCarthy v. United States is not retroactive.
-
420 F.2d 965·
9th Cir.·
1969-12-23
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant's unawareness of his ineligibility for probation, suspension of sentence, or parole at the time of his guilty plea did not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing or relief, as the relevant precedent was not retroactive to his plea date.
-
415 F.2d 1112·
9th Cir.·
1969-08-19
·cited 2×
The court held that the heroin conviction motion requires a hearing in light of new precedent, and the marihuana convictions must be remanded for hearings on the voluntariness of the guilty pleas.
-
406 F.2d 417·
6th Cir.·
1969-02-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion without a hearing because the record did not conclusively show that the defendant understood the consequences of his guilty plea and waiver under Rule 20 and Rule 11.
-
389 F.2d 383·
4th Cir.·
1968-01-11
·cited 2×
The court held that technical noncompliance with Rule 11 is not fatal if the defendant was otherwise informed of the potential penalties and suffered no prejudice.