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

• Americo Michel v. United States
  507 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-02 ·cited 58×
  A district court is not required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea, such as deportation, under Rule 11.
• United States v. Latroy D. RAY
  828 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the district court failed to strictly comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting the guilty pleas, these failures constituted harmless error because the defendants understood the nature of the charges and there was a sufficient factua
• United States v. Yater
  756 F.2d 1058· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 56×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  A defendant waives the entrapment defense by pleading guilty, and a conditional plea under Rule 11(a)(2) does not preserve the entrapment issue for appeal. Furthermore, the government's conduct in this case did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to bar prosecution.
• United States v. Gilliss
  645 F.2d 1269· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 56×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(F)
  The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the Speedy Trial Act, its rulings on the insanity defense and expert witness qualifications, or its jury instructions. However, the court vacated the sentence imposed on count I due to a potential due proces
• Roddy v. Black
  516 F.2d 1380· 6th Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 56×
  A state court's acceptance of a guilty plea is not constitutionally invalid for failing to establish a factual basis for the plea, nor for failing to explicitly advise the defendant of the maximum sentence, if the plea was otherwise voluntary and intelligent.
• United States v. Rivera
  825 F.2d 152· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 55×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that warrantless entry into a hotel room was justified by exigent circumstances, seizure of suitcases was permissible under plain view, and the automobile exception allowed warrantless search of a vehicle.
• Bachner v. United States
  517 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 54×
  A trial judge's failure to advise a defendant of a mandatory parole term does not render a guilty plea involuntary or constitutionally infirm, especially when the potential sentence advised is significantly higher than the actual sentence imposed.
• United States v. Ammidown
  497 F.2d 615· D.C. Cir.· 1973-11-16 ·cited 54×
  Consecutive sentences for murder were unavailable to the trial judge.
• Hodge v. United States
  414 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel by asserting his right to self-representation, and that the trial court did not err in its procedures.
• United States v. Frank Runnels (86-1923) & Arnold Shapero (86-1922)
  833 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a conviction cannot be sustained on a theory not advanced by the government at trial, even if the jury's findings would support it, due to potential prejudice to the defendant.
• United States v. Jimenez-Diaz
  659 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in questioning a co-defendant about his guilty plea, denying a continuance, or admitting a post-arrest statement, and that the cumulative effect of alleged errors did not deny a fair trial.
• United States v. Miller
  588 F.2d 1256· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the sentence was enhanced by challenged allegations before relief under Weston is warranted. The judge's fine was not based on the challenged allegations but on defense counsel's suggestion.
• McCHESNEY v. Henderson
  482 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 51×
  A state court guilty plea is valid if intelligently and voluntarily made, even without express articulation of all constitutional rights, and post-conviction evidence can cure a silent trial record.
• Paradiso v. United States
  482 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the appellants' guilty pleas were voluntary and valid under Rule 11, and that withdrawal of the pleas after sentencing was not warranted as it would not correct manifest injustice.
• United States v. Turner
  881 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-01 ·cited 50×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by the court's failure to inform the defendant of the specific applicable Sentencing Guidelines range prior to the plea. Furthermore, a sentence may stand even if the precise guideline range is
• BYE v. United States
  435 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-14 ·cited 50×
  A guilty plea is not voluntary with an understanding of its consequences if the defendant is not informed of their ineligibility for parole, which significantly impacts the length of incarceration.
• Holmes v. United States
  876 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 49×
  The court held that a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on attorney misadvice regarding parole eligibility requires a showing that the defendant would have gone to trial but for the error.
• United States v. Smith
  440 F.2d 521· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 49×
  A defendant must be informed of parole ineligibility before pleading guilty to a federal narcotics law violation, as this is a consequence of the plea under Rule 11.
• United States v. Antone
  753 F.2d 1301· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court's rulings on probable cause, factual basis for guilty pleas, and suppression motions were correct.
• United States v. Penes
  577 F.2d 754· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to accept a nolo contendere plea without establishing a factual basis, nor in denying motions for recusal or a new trial based on juror competency. The court also found that the admission of certain statements, evidence
• United States v. Anderson
  514 F.2d 583· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were violated by the imposition of a ten-year sentence for a crime with a one-year maximum, and that the government was not barred by double jeopardy from prosecuting the defendant for a more serious offense after a prior gui
• United States v. Brown
  428 F.2d 1100· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-03 ·cited 48×
  In the limited circumstances of a defendant stipulating to all charged acts due to mental condition, the trial judge must personally address the defendant, similar to accepting a guilty plea under Rule 11.
• Woodward v. United States
  426 F.2d 959· 3d Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions to vacate his sentence and set aside his conviction, as substantial evidence supported the finding that the plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly, and no manifest injustice
• Downs-Morgan v. United States
  765 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 47×
  The court agrees that the defendant should have an evidentiary hearing to determine if his guilty plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Williams
  534 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 47×
  A defendant retried on greater charges after a conviction on a lesser included offense (based on a guilty plea) was vacated does not violate double jeopardy or due process, as there is no implicit acquittal or prosecutorial vindictiveness.
• United States v. Terrack
  515 F.2d 558· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 47×
  A stipulation of facts, even if it admits facts constituting guilt, does not constitute a de facto guilty plea requiring a Rule 11 examination by the court.
• United States v. Reyes-Ruiz
  868 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a prior conviction for aiding and abetting the illegal entry of an alien qualifies as a 'related offense' for the purpose of increasing the offense level under Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.1(b)(2), and a misstatement regarding the maximum term of supervised rele
• Voytik v. United States
  778 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendant's allegations were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate his sentence, and that challenges to the execution of a sentence are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Wilks v. Israel
  627 F.2d 32· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and that the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself did not deprive the petitioner of a fair trial. The court also held that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies on the issu
• Aguilera-Enriquez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  516 F.2d 565· 6th Cir.· 1975-05-07 ·cited 46×
  The majority held that the absence of counsel did not prevent full consideration of the petitioner's argument and no different result would have been obtained had counsel been appointed, thus the hearing was fundamentally fair.
• United States v. Gallington
  488 F.2d 637· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 46×
  A judge who conditionally accepts a guilty plea and later rejects it is not automatically disqualified from presiding over the trial, absent a showing of actual prejudice.
• Maxwell v. United States
  368 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1966-11-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept a guilty plea from a defendant who could not recall the events of the crime and that the admission of a photograph and the refusal of certain jury instructions were not erroneous.
• United States v. Wetterlin
  583 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court failed to comply with Rule 11 requirements regarding informing the defendant of the nature of the charges and establishing a factual basis for the plea on Count I, necessitating vacating the plea. However, compliance was found for Count X.
• Timmreck v. United States
  577 F.2d 372· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 45×
  A violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, specifically failing to inform a defendant of a mandatory minimum special parole term, is per se prejudicial and cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, even if the total sentence falls within the maximum stated.
• United States v. Rea Lyn Segal
  549 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 45×
  The dissent argues that the record must show a probationer's awareness of the rights waived by admitting probation violations, similar to the requirement for guilty pleas.
• United States v. Echegoyen
  799 F.2d 1271· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 44×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  A defendant's conditional guilty plea must be in writing to reserve appellate issues, and oral understandings are insufficient. Exigent circumstances, including a fire hazard and suspected drug activity, justified a warrantless entry, and subsequent entries were a continuation of
• United States v. Moskow
  588 F.2d 882· 3d Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge holds that the conditional guilty plea utilized in this case does not render the order final for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• McCOY v. United States
  363 F.2d 306· D.C. Cir.· 1966-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a judge must consider all evidence to determine if there is a factual basis for a guilty plea, not just an admission of guilt.
• Barrientos v. United States
  668 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that the defendant did not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest affecting his counsel's performance, his guilty plea was voluntary, and the failure to appeal after a guilty plea does not constitute ineffective
• United States v. Salva
  902 F.2d 483· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 42×·via Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)
  The court held that the district court was not required to inform the defendant of the likely sentencing range under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and that it was permissible to consider drug quantities from dismissed charges in calculating the base offense level.
• United States v. Bell
  776 F.2d 965· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in accepting the guilty plea, denying the motion to dismiss, or imposing the sentence, affirming the conviction and sentence.
• Griffin v. United States
  405 F.2d 1378· D.C. Cir.· 1968-11-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to accept the defendant's guilty plea to manslaughter, as the inconsistencies in the defendant's statements did not provide sufficient grounds for refusal under Rule 11.
• United States v. Sharp
  941 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 41×
  The court held that restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act is limited to the offense of conviction, even if the offense involves a scheme, and that a district court is not bound by the government's sentencing recommendation.
• United States v. Warters
  885 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 40×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(F)
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make findings on disputed sentencing facts and by departing from the guidelines without adequate explanation, requiring a remand for resentencing.
• United States v. Buckles
  843 F.2d 469· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• Baker v. United States
  781 F.2d 85· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-15 ·cited 40×
  A defendant's guilty plea is knowing and voluntary if entered into after the court scrupulously follows Rule 11 procedures, and the defendant is bound by the terms revealed in open court, absent extraordinary circumstances.
• United States v. Alexander
  761 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 40×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, probable cause existed for the arrest, and the denial of the motion to disclose informants' identities was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hill v. A.L. Lockhart
  731 F.2d 568· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 40×
  The court should remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the attorney's misadvice on parole eligibility constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, inducing the guilty plea.
• Mack v. United States
  635 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in accepting the defendant's guilty plea without adequately ensuring it was voluntary and that the defendant understood the charges, and also erred in denying a hearing on the motion to vacate sentence.
• Hunter v. Fogg
  616 F.2d 55· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 40×
  A guilty plea is not constitutionally invalid for lack of information about parole eligibility or the minimum period of imprisonment set by a parole board, as this is distinct from a mandatory minimum sentence.