700 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 130 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
532 F.2d 318·
3d Cir.·
1976-02-02
·cited 26×
A guilty plea forecloses consideration of pre-plea motions unless the plea itself is challenged as involuntary or the government lacked the power to prosecute. A harsher sentence imposed after a successful appeal, without affirmative reasons based on objective conduct, violates d
-
526 F.2d 708·
5th Cir.·
1976-02-02
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court's acceptance of the defendant's guilty plea was invalid because the required inquiries under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 were made by the prosecutor, not the judge personally.
-
503 F.2d 598·
9th Cir.·
1974-09-19
·cited 26×
A defendant cannot call a co-defendant who intends to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even if the co-defendant has entered a guilty plea to some counts.
-
485 F.2d 1046·
D.C. Cir.·
1973-09-05
·cited 26×
A district court abuses its discretion by refusing a guilty plea solely because the defendant maintains innocence, provided there is a strong factual basis for the plea and it is voluntary.
-
476 F.2d 787·
2d Cir.·
1973-04-12
·cited 26×
The court held that a district judge's failure to warn a defendant of potential deportation as a consequence of a guilty plea does not, without more, render the plea invalid under due process standards.
-
474 F.2d 303·
9th Cir.·
1973-02-01
·cited 26×
A guilty plea is valid even if the defendant is not explicitly advised of the right against self-incrimination, as long as the record shows the plea was knowing and voluntary.
-
456 F.2d 992·
3d Cir.·
1972-03-03
·cited 26×
The court held that allegations of attorney misrepresentation inducing a guilty plea are sufficient to require an adversary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, even if the court records do not directly contradict them.
-
432 F.2d 871·
10th Cir.·
1970-11-05
·cited 26×
The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to conduct a competency hearing when the psychiatric report indicated the defendant was competent, and that a retrospective competency determination was permissible.
-
-
373 F.2d 570·
5th Cir.·
1967-02-24
·cited 26×
The court held that the district court failed to adequately demonstrate compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the guilty pleas, and thus the case must be remanded for the district court to properly consider the burden of proof.
-
371 F.2d 930·
4th Cir.·
1966-12-27
·cited 26×
The court's majority opinion's additional suggestions to district judges regarding Rules 11 and 44.1 are permissible extrapolations, and the concurring judge agrees to join them.
-
368 F.2d 53·
10th Cir.·
1966-10-27
·cited 26×
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of a guilty plea if they were not fully advised of the potential sentencing consequences under all applicable statutes.
-
The court held that the district court properly applied the arson sentencing guideline based on stipulated facts, even though the conviction was for mail fraud, and that the refusal to grant a continuance for a psychological evaluation was not an abuse of discretion.
-
898 F.2d 210·
1st Cir.·
1990-03-13
·cited 25×
The court held that inserting a key into a storage unit padlock to identify ownership is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and that a trial stipulation does not require the same procedural safeguards as a guilty plea under Rule 11.
-
910 F.2d 1309·
6th Cir.·
1990-08-08
·cited 24×
The court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding that the Sentencing Guidelines applied to Gordon's conspiracy offense, but remanded for factual findings on government inducement and plea agreement issues. Paul's Speedy Trial Act claim and plea agreement claim were reject
-
868 F.2d 1121·
9th Cir.·
1989-03-03
·cited 24×
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(1)(B) limits a juvenile's sentence to the statutory maximum for the offense, not the maximum that could be imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rule 11 does not require advising a juvenile of parole ineligibility or Guideline sentencing
-
847 F.2d 991·
1st Cir.·
1988-05-31
·cited 24×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, but remanded for resentencing due to a violation of the right of allocution.
-
845 F.2d 277·
11th Cir.·
1988-05-16
·cited 24×
The government's violation of the plea agreement by introducing evidence of cocaine found in the house, contrary to the agreement's stipulation, entitles the defendant to specific performance of the agreement, requiring resentencing.
-
831 F.2d 664·
6th Cir.·
1987-10-22
·cited 24×
The court held that the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) by determining that disputed factual inaccuracies in the presentence report would not be considered in sentencing. The court also found no merit in claims of plea agreement violation or ineffective ass
-
775 F.2d 82·
3d Cir.·
1985-10-17
·cited 24×
The court held that a restitution order imposed as a condition of probation does not violate a plea agreement if the defendant was clearly informed of the possibility and extent of restitution before accepting the plea.
-
The court held that the airport search and seizure of cocaine were constitutional, based on reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop and voluntary consent to search.
-
608 F.2d 538·
5th Cir.·
1979-12-17
·cited 24×
A guilty plea entered while protesting innocence is constitutionally invalid unless there is a factual basis for the plea, and the state court must develop facts to support it.
-
541 F.2d 979·
2d Cir.·
1976-09-03
·cited 24×
A guilty plea is constitutionally valid if the defendant was aware of the actual sentencing possibilities, and if not, whether accurate information would have made a difference in the decision to plead.
-
532 F.2d 249·
2d Cir.·
1976-03-08
·cited 24×
The court should affirm Eucker's conviction because the indictment adequately set forth the charges to which he pleaded guilty, and his claims of ignorance or confusion are not supported by the record.
-
485 F.2d 292·
8th Cir.·
1973-10-03
·cited 24×
The court held that a motion to vacate a sentence based on allegedly enhanced prior convictions was properly dismissed because the sentencing judge explicitly stated he did not rely on those convictions, and the defendant had not exhausted state remedies for prior state convictio
-
469 F.2d 92·
5th Cir.·
1972-10-31
·cited 24×
A defendant need not be advised of every 'but for' consequence of a guilty plea, only the maximum possible sentence.
-
462 F.2d 352·
4th Cir.·
1972-06-21
·cited 24×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the plea.
-
440 F.2d 643·
8th Cir.·
1971-03-26
·cited 24×
The court held that a direct appeal from a guilty plea is limited to issues related to compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-
424 F.2d 1276·
3d Cir.·
1970-04-28
·cited 24×
A district court abuses its discretion by vacating a prior decision to allow a guilty plea withdrawal when the defendant demonstrates confusion about the charges, as withdrawal should be freely allowed before sentencing to correct manifest injustice.
-
362 F.2d 97·
7th Cir.·
1966-06-16
·cited 24×
The trial court did not err in accepting the defendant's guilty plea, as the colloquy and surrounding circumstances informally satisfied the requirements of Rule 11.
-
946 F.2d 1297·
7th Cir.·
1991-11-05
·cited 23×
The court held that the district court properly accepted the defendant's guilty plea and sentenced him, finding no reversible error in the proceedings.
-
769 F.2d 1095·
5th Cir.·
1985-09-03
·cited 23×
A defendant's guilty plea is not invalidated by counsel's erroneous advice regarding the maximum sentence if the misinformation did not induce the plea or prejudice the defense.
-
727 F.2d 1037·
11th Cir.·
1984-03-19
·cited 23×
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his sentence without an evidentiary hearing.
-
678 F.2d 1062·
11th Cir.·
1982-06-18
·cited 23×
The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, despite allegations of misleading advice from FBI agents, because he was represented by counsel before pleading and affirmed his plea in court.
-
588 F.2d 471·
5th Cir.·
1979-01-25
·cited 23×
The court held that a district court's failure to comply literally with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting guilty pleas requires reversal on direct appeal, obligating the defendant to be given an opportunity to plead anew. Specific failures included inadequate explanation of charges,
-
The court held that when a Section 2255 petition alleging coercion into a guilty plea is supported by credible third-party affidavits, an evidentiary hearing is required, even if the petitioner previously stated otherwise during a Rule 11 colloquy.
-
The court held that the district court's omissions in advising the defendant of his rights under Rule 11 were harmless errors, and that the defendant had adequate opportunity to contest the factual basis for sentencing enhancements.
-
947 F.2d 211·
6th Cir.·
1991-10-11
·cited 22×
The court held that defendants waived their sentencing guideline calculation issue by failing to raise it in the district court, and that the district court's finding that Weaver was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous.
-
800 F.2d 123·
7th Cir.·
1986-08-27
·cited 22×
The court held that while the guilty plea was constitutionally valid despite Rule 11 deficiencies, the defendant is entitled to reconsideration of his sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance to secure a codefendant's testimony, as the defendant failed to show the codefendant would testify and the Fifth Amendment privilege could still be invoked.
-
614 F.2d 176·
8th Cir.·
1980-01-28
·cited 22×
A sentencing court need not inform a defendant of all collateral consequences of a guilty plea, such as the inability to run a federal sentence concurrently with a state sentence, for the plea to be considered voluntary under Rule 11.
-
599 F.2d 142·
7th Cir.·
1979-04-24
·cited 22×
The dissenting judge would have affirmed the guilty pleas, finding them voluntary despite a technical omission in the Rule 11 colloquy.
-
-
527 F.2d 305·
7th Cir.·
1975-12-05
·cited 22×
The court held that the possibility of a federal sentence running consecutively to a state sentence is not a "consequence" of a guilty plea under Rule 11, and thus the district court was not required to inform the defendant of this possibility before accepting the plea.
-
505 F.2d 761·
9th Cir.·
1974-11-06
·cited 22×
Boykin v. Alabama does not require a state court judge to specifically articulate the three federal constitutional rights waived by a guilty plea; a reviewing court can find a plea voluntary and intelligent from the entire record, including a post-conviction evidentiary hearing.
-
496 F.2d 718·
2d Cir.·
1974-04-01
·cited 22×
The court held that erroneous advice from counsel regarding sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel unless it is so egregious as to shock the conscience.
-
433 F.2d 591·
1st Cir.·
1970-11-06
·cited 22×
A guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise of a specific sentence by a government official is void and entitles the defendant to a hearing on a motion to vacate the sentence.
-
391 F.2d 1017·
9th Cir.·
1968-03-27
·cited 22×
A defendant is not entitled to know under which specific act he will be sentenced, only the maximum possible sentence.
-
369 F.2d 43·
4th Cir.·
1966-10-25
·cited 22×
The writ of error coram nobis is available to challenge a conviction and sentence that a petitioner is to serve in the future, even in the absence of an allegation of present parole eligibility impairment.
-
296 F.2d 549·
8th Cir.·
1961-11-13
·cited 22×
The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was entered voluntarily and with understanding, despite the court not explicitly detailing the full range of punishment.