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

• United States v. Carey
  884 F.2d 547· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)
  The court held that a district court's failure to inform a defendant about supervised release at a plea hearing does not require vacating the conviction if substantial rights were not affected.
• United States v. Woods
  870 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-17 ·cited 16×
  A federal prisoner's failure to demonstrate prima facie constitutional error in his guilty plea proceedings, even with a lost transcript, warrants denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Partida-Parra
  859 F.2d 629· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's error in vacating a guilty plea was harmless because the government was no longer bound by the plea agreement and subsequent prosecutions were not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• Politte v. United States
  852 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 16×·via Rule 11 Colloquy
  A guilty plea is voluntary even if influenced by concern for a spouse's sentence, provided the prosecution of the third party is in good faith and the plea agreement is properly entered.
• United States v. Lumpkins
  845 F.2d 1444· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 16×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary by a defendant's potential confusion about a defense, especially when the court clarifies the burden of proof and the defense itself is implausible.
• The United States v. Emmett Earl Fulford
  825 F.2d 3· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that omissions from the Rule 11 colloquy were not serious enough to vacate the sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed due to lack of prejudice, and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act was not violated.
• United States v. Martinez
  764 F.2d 744· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the affidavit submitted to the magistrate, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, provided sufficient reliable facts to establish probable cause for the search warrant.
• United States v. Kearney
  750 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 16×
  A prior conviction used for sentencing enhancement need not be alleged in the information charging the underlying offense, provided the defendant receives notice and an opportunity to be heard on the prior conviction at sentencing.
• United States v. Barbin
  743 F.2d 256· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the warrantless search of the sailboat was justified under the border search exception, even if the automobile exception was not fully applicable.
• Mixon v. United States
  608 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that dismissal for delay under Rule 9(a) requires government prejudice, and affirmed the finding of effective waiver of counsel, but remanded for a hearing on Rule 11 compliance.
• United States v. Carter
  602 F.2d 799· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the current rule requiring a showing of actual prejudice for jury separation during deliberations is too stringent.
• United States v. Sanderson
  595 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 16×
  A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, even if contradicted by sworn testimony at the plea colloquy, when supported by specific factual allegations and a reliable third-party affidavit.
• United States v. Hart
  566 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a trial judge's failure to personally inform defendants of their rights and the consequences of their plea, as required by Rule 11, necessitates reversal of their convictions.
• United States v. Watson
  548 F.2d 1058· D.C. Cir.· 1977-01-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant's application for collateral relief based on a failure to be informed of a mandatory special parole term during a guilty plea should be treated as a motion to withdraw the plea under Rule 32(d), Fed.R.Crim.P., rather than solely under 28 U.S.C. § 2
• Cheely v. United States
  535 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to vacate the sentence was not clearly erroneous, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Seiller v. United States
  544 F.2d 554· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court adequately established the defendant understood the charges and that a factual basis existed for his guilty pleas, thus denying his motion to vacate the conviction without a hearing.
• United States v. Bertram L. Podell and Martin Miller
  519 F.2d 144· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' guilty pleas were validly entered and that the district court did not err in denying their motions to withdraw those pleas.
• United States v. Vera
  514 F.2d 102· 5th Cir.· 1975-06-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 by not adequately determining the defendants understood the nature of the charges and that there was a factual basis for their guilty pleas.
• Ferguson v. United States
  513 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defendant must be permitted to replead if the record does not affirmatively show the judge informed them of the special parole term consequences of their guilty plea.
• Frank v. United States
  501 F.2d 173· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-30 ·cited 16×
  A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of an unkept plea bargain if the plea transcript conclusively shows no promises were made.
• Moody v. United States
  497 F.2d 359· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations of plea bargaining, as the allegations were not sufficiently specific.
• Davis v. United States
  470 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-22 ·cited 16×
  A guilty plea is valid even if the prosecutor, with the court present, asks some Rule 11 questions, as long as the defendant is personally addressed and understands the plea's nature and consequences.
• Jones v. United States
  440 F.2d 466· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's requirement for explicit disclosure of the maximum sentence range.
• United States v. DeCOSTA
  435 F.2d 630· 1st Cir.· 1970-12-14 ·cited 16×
  A guilty plea does not waive the right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution based on a speedy trial violation.
• United States v. Pasquale A. Delsanter
  433 F.2d 972· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-02 ·cited 16×
• Perry v. Crouse
  429 F.2d 1083· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Boykin v. Alabama should not be applied retroactively to a 1965 guilty plea, and that the trial court erred by dismissing the appellant's testimony as legally insufficient under state law.
• United States v. Lowe
  367 F.2d 44· 7th Cir.· 1966-07-26 ·cited 16×
  A defendant's guilty plea is not void if the court is responsibly satisfied that the defendant understood the nature of the charge and pleaded voluntarily, even without explicit explanation of all elements.
• Reed v. United States
  354 F.2d 227· 5th Cir.· 1965-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant was denied his right to counsel when entering his guilty plea, as no offer of counsel was made. The district court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing.
• United States v. Grimon
  923 F.3d 1302· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) is not a jurisdictional element, and therefore, a failure to sufficiently allege or prove it does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• United States v. Gomez-Gomez
  822 F.2d 1008· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-27 ·cited 15×
  A trial court has broad discretion to reject a guilty plea, even after initial acceptance, if it finds no factual basis or if the defendant protests innocence.
• United States v. Rubalcaba
  811 F.2d 491· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant's claims did not warrant withdrawal of his guilty plea, affirming the district court's denial.
• United States
  669 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 15×
  The Speedy Trial Act's dismissal sanctions under § 3162 are inapplicable to cases where the original indictment was filed before July 1, 1980, regardless of subsequent retrial dates.
• United States v. Lucius McKOY
  645 F.2d 1037· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
• United States v. Clark
  574 F.2d 1357· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a judge's delegation of explaining maximum penalties to the prosecutor is reversible error under Rule 11.
• Entrekin v. United States
  508 F.2d 1328· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motions to vacate sentences, finding that his claims were either not cognizable under § 2255, were matters of trial error, or were unsupported by the record.
• Waddy v. Heer
  383 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1967-10-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners' guilty pleas were not rendered involuntary by the alleged police coercion, the trial judge's participation in sentence discussions, or the absence of counsel at certain stages, and that the racial designation on the indictment did not vitiate
• United States v. Mustafa A. Abdullah
  947 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not violate Rule 11 in accepting the guilty pleas, did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the pleas, and that the federal sentencing guidelines do not violate the defendant's due process rights.
• United States v. Garza
  921 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-02 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the officer's frisk of the defendant was justified under Terry v. Ohio, and that prior burglary convictions could be used for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on the indictments meeting the generic burglary definition.
• Lewis v. United States
  902 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-15 ·cited 14×
  A district judge is not required by due process or Rule 11 to warn a defendant that a conviction may be used to enhance a future sentence.
• United States v. Ruiz-Garcia
  886 F.2d 474· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the sentence, finding the defendant's arguments to be meritless and the sentence within the statutory limits and Guidelines range.
• United States v. Atehortua
  875 F.2d 149· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 14×·via Rule 11 Colloquy
  A defendant's sentence is not rendered illegal by an error in the presentence report regarding the Parole Commission's likely actions, especially when the district court states it was not influenced by the error and the defendant failed to object to the report's inaccuracies at s
• Nevarez-Diaz v. United States
  870 F.2d 417· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea, as the plea was involuntary due to a Rule 11 violation and ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Amin Ataya
  864 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant breached his plea agreement by refusing to cooperate further, and therefore the superseding indictment should not have been dismissed.
• United States v. Romero-Vilca
  850 F.2d 177· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that potential deportation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, and therefore the sentencing court was not required by Rule 11 to inform the defendant of this possibility. The court also declined to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim not ra
• United States v. Lovett
  844 F.2d 487· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the information sufficiently stated an offense, the guilty plea was valid despite minor Rule 11 deviations, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Nieuwsma
  779 F.2d 1359· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 14×
  A guilty plea is knowing and intelligent if the defendant understood the nature of the charge, and the indictment and record provided sufficient notice of the intent element.
• Pitts v. United States
  763 F.2d 197· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's claim of attorney misadvice regarding maximum sentence exposure, and the trial court's own misstatement of maximum sentence exposure, warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine if the guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent.
• United States v. Khoury
  755 F.2d 1071· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's promise to recommend probation did not create a new binding plea agreement, nor did it render the initial guilty plea involuntary.
• Godwin v. United States
  687 F.2d 585· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and the lack of a sufficient factual basis for his plea, in light of his assertion of facts inconsistent with guilt, constituted substantial defects undermining the val
• United States v. Laura
  667 F.2d 365· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an actual conflict of interest from joint representation did not adversely affect the appellant's legal representation, and that she made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of her right to separate counsel. Furthermore, the court found that the trial