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

• del Vecchio v. United States
  556 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-24 ·cited 40×
  While the district judge did not fully comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, the errors did not require vacating the conviction on collateral attack because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.
• Augustus E. Harvin v. United States
  445 F.2d 675· D.C. Cir.· 1971-05-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Federal Youth Corrections Act (FYCA) requires prosecution by indictment for sentences that could constitute infamous punishment, even if the actual confinement is labeled as 'treatment'.
• United States v. Sambro
  454 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1971-04-02 ·cited 40×
  A district court's refusal to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing will be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion, and misunderstanding of collateral consequences like deportation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
• Linton K. Mordecai, Jr. v. United States
  421 F.2d 1133· D.C. Cir.· 1969-10-07 ·cited 40×
  New legal standards regarding right to counsel and hearing at waiver proceedings are not retroactively applicable to a 1961 waiver determination.
• Arnold v. United States
  414 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was intelligent and competent, and that this waiver extended through the sentencing proceedings. The court also found that the defendant's trial tactics did not demonstrate incompetence.
• United States v. Ramos
  923 F.2d 1346· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-17 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the search warrant, though lacking probable cause, was saved by the good faith exception, and that the officers complied with knock-notice requirements, thus affirming the denial of the motion to suppress. The court also held that the defendant was not entitle
• United States v. Sanclemente-Bejarano
  861 F.2d 206· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 39×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 does not require a trial court to warn a defendant of parole ineligibility before accepting a guilty plea, and that the failure to explain supervised release was harmless error.
• United States v. Houghton
  554 F.2d 1219· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to hold a Rule 11 hearing for a codefendant, denying dismissal of the indictment despite a delay in informant disclosure, limiting cross-examination regarding contempt proceedings, denying a jury-waived trial, or in i
• Hulsey v. United States
  369 F.2d 284· 5th Cir.· 1966-12-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a guilty plea must be an unequivocal and knowledgeable admission of the offense charged, and the district court erred in accepting a qualified plea without further inquiry.
• United States v. Savage
  891 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 38×
• United States v. Campbell
  778 F.2d 764· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 38×
  A district court is not required to advise a defendant of the collateral consequence of deportation when accepting a guilty plea.
• United States v. Adams
  566 F.2d 962· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 38×
• United States v. Lawriw
  568 F.2d 98· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court's inquiry into the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation was sufficient to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to separate counsel.
• Sierra v. The Gov't OF the Canal Zone
  546 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court's questioning during the guilty plea colloquy did not satisfy Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring the defendant to plead anew.
• Bell v. United States
  521 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 38×
  A district court's failure to inform a defendant of the mandatory special parole term required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) is harmless error if the total sentence imposed, including the special parole term, does not exceed the maximum sentence the defendant was told could be impo
• Wade v. Ira M. Coiner
  468 F.2d 1059· 4th Cir.· 1972-10-26 ·cited 38×
  A defendant is not constitutionally entitled to be specifically informed of every single right waived by a guilty plea, as long as the plea is entered voluntarily and intelligently.
• Dorrough v. United States
  385 F.2d 887· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-15 ·cited 38×
  A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant is not fully informed of all lesser included offenses and their potential penalties, even if the defendant admits to conduct constituting the greater offense.
• Roddy v. United States
  296 F.2d 9· 10th Cir.· 1961-11-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the lower court's findings of fact were supported by ample evidence, and therefore, its denial of the petition to vacate the conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Ykema
  887 F.2d 697· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the government did not violate the plea agreement by using information about drug trafficking beyond the 'approximately 2 kilograms' stated in the plea agreement for sentencing purposes, as the agreement only promised not to bring additional charges.
• United States v. Weaver
  882 F.2d 1128· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all five defendants, finding no merit in their various claims regarding violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Kapperman
  764 F.2d 786· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 37×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the initial stop and subsequent detention of the defendants were lawful, and the search of the vehicle, including the suitcase, was valid based on consent.
• United States v. Davila
  698 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The dissent argues that an accused cannot be guilty of misprision of a felony when the conduct concealed is the commission of the felony itself, due to Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Cawley
  481 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for a continuance, new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding a co-defendant's plea bargain, or a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial comment on a defendant's silence.
• United States v. Cody
  438 F.2d 287· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was validly accepted and he was not entitled to withdraw it after sentencing.
• Fields v. United States
  438 F.2d 205· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the guilty plea, finding that the defendant was properly informed of the charges and consequences, and that the prosecution under state law was permissible.
• United States v. Frye
  738 F.2d 196· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the defendant's motion to vacate her conviction without an evidentiary hearing, as the defendant's allegations regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of understanding of the intent element warranted further
• KEY v. United States
  806 F.2d 133· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of plea agreement breach, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless and that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
• Angeles Ramonita Garcia v. Neagle
  660 F.2d 983· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its powers by reviewing the Parole Commission's determination for abuse of discretion and that the Commission did not violate its statutory mandate in promulgating or applying its parole guidelines.
• United States v. Winfield L. Roberts
  570 F.2d 999· D.C. Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Government's failure to fully disclose the details of the plea agreement during the Rule 11 proceedings required reversal and permitted the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Bean
  564 F.2d 700· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 34×
  A district court judge has discretion to reject a plea bargain if it is contrary to the public interest, and this discretion is not subject to stringent appellate review unless it constitutes a gross abuse of discretion.
• Benson v. United States
  552 F.2d 223· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-22 ·cited 34×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(F)
  The court held that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
• Bunker v. Wise
  550 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 34×
  A district court's failure to inform a defendant of a mandatory special parole term when accepting a guilty plea violates Rule 11, and this rule should be applied retroactively.
• United States v. Guerrero-Peralta
  446 F.2d 876· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that an oral stipulation to proceed with an eleven-person jury, without the defendant's express and intelligent consent appearing on the record, violates Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Manley v. United States
  432 F.2d 1241· 2d Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to replead, holding that the defendant's guilty plea, entered before April 2, 1969, was constitutionally valid even if the judge did not explicitly satisfy himself of a factual basis for the plea.
• Sanchez v. United States
  417 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-09 ·cited 34×
  A trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of their ineligibility for parole when accepting a guilty plea under Rule 11.
• United States v. Corn
  836 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 33×·via Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)
  The court held that the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 does not authorize restitution for losses suffered before January 1, 1983.
• United States v. Angeles Ramonita Garcia
  698 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to make a recommendation for probation, but affirmed the denial of the Rule 11 and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• Martin v. United States
  256 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-18 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a guilty plea is voluntary if made with understanding of charges and competent counsel's advice, even if induced by dismissal of a capital count.
• United States v. Navarro-Botello
  912 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 32×
  A defendant's waiver of the right to appeal a sentence, made as part of a negotiated plea agreement, is enforceable if it is made voluntarily and knowingly, and does not violate due process or public policy.
• United States v. Langford Wiggins
  905 F.2d 51· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 32×
  A defendant who expressly waives the right to appeal his sentence in a valid plea agreement cannot subsequently appeal that sentence.
• United States ex rel. Charles "Chuck" Miller v. Greer
  789 F.2d 438· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 32×
  The court should affirm the district court's judgment because the prosecutor's improper inquiry did not affect the verdict and was harmless error.
• United States v. Reckmeyer
  786 F.2d 1216· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as Rule 11 was substantially complied with and the government did not breach the plea agreement.
• United States v. Hyman Schmidt
  760 F.2d 828· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all defendants, finding sufficient evidence for extortion convictions, upholding the denial of a motion to withdraw stipulations, and rejecting claims of immunity promises.
• United States v. Osban Caston
  615 F.2d 1111· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that minor omissions in advising a defendant of rights before accepting a guilty plea, and imposing consecutive sentences for distinct statutory violations, do not warrant reversal if the errors are harmless.
• United States v. Woosley
  440 F.2d 1280· 8th Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
• Harris v. United States
  426 F.2d 99· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that ineligibility for parole is a consequence of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and a defendant must be informed of this consequence to ensure the plea is voluntary and knowing.
• Laughner v. United States
  373 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 32×
  A client waives the attorney-client privilege by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, allowing the attorney to testify regarding relevant communications. Non-compliance with Rule 11 regarding guilty pleas is harmless if the defendant otherwise understood the charges.
• Bartlett v. United States
  354 F.2d 745· 8th Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the waiver of indictment and that the guilty pleas were made voluntarily and with understanding.
• Richardson v. United States
  577 F.2d 447· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a defendant's conclusory allegations contradicting statements made during a guilty plea proceeding are insufficient for post-conviction relief without a valid reason for the contradiction. However, failure to inform a defendant of the maximum special parole te
• Jones v. United States
  384 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 31×
  Compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not conclusively bar a subsequent § 2255 petition alleging facts outside the arraignment record.