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. Sanchez
  609 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-09 ·cited 14×
  A district judge's rejection of a conditionally accepted guilty plea to a lesser included offense does not bar prosecution of the original, greater offense on double jeopardy grounds.
• United States v. Beck
  606 F.2d 814· 8th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant's guilty plea was valid and he received effective assistance of counsel, affirming the denial of his post-conviction petition.
• United States v. Cammisano
  599 F.2d 851· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 when accepting the defendant's guilty plea, necessitating a remand.
• United States v. Boniface
  601 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Cobb v. United States
  583 F.2d 695· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant need not be informed of the potential effect of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3568 as a consequence of a guilty plea under Rule 11.
• Howard v. United States
  580 F.2d 716· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant seeking to overturn a guilty plea via a § 2255 petition must demonstrate prejudice and a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice, not merely a technical violation of Rule 11.
• United States v. Bradin
  535 F.2d 1039· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea.
• United States v. Biscoe
  518 F.2d 95· 1st Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept the defendant's guilty plea when he expressed doubt about his guilt and the government's evidence was weak. It also held that the sentencing court could consider the defendant's demeanor dur
• Kelsey v. United States
  484 F.2d 1198· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-13 ·cited 14×
  A guilty plea is involuntary and must be vacated if the defendant was misinformed about the maximum possible sentence, even if the misinformation is later deemed harmless error.
• Thunder v. United States
  477 F.2d 1326· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and thus the appellant's motion to vacate his sentence was properly denied.
• United States v. Simpson
  475 F.2d 934· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim that his counsel falsely represented assurances from the judge regarding sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Justo Farias
  459 F.2d 738· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial judge properly complied with Rule 11 requirements regarding guilty pleas.
• United States v. Donohoe
  458 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant's allegations regarding a prior robbery offense, if true, raised a substantial due process issue requiring factual examination.
• Marvel v. United States
  335 F.2d 101· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court should hold that the appellant has been deprived of liberty for longer than understood at the time of his guilty plea and is entitled to discharge.
• Mason v. United States
  250 F.2d 704· 10th Cir.· 1957-12-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant does not have an absolute right to waive a jury trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to accept a nolo contendere plea or in its evidentiary rulings.
• Donnelly v. United States
  185 F.2d 559· 10th Cir.· 1950-11-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was legally sufficient and the district court had jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea and impose a life sentence.
• United States v. DAY
  969 F.2d 39· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a plea offer, based on counsel's alleged failure to explain career offender status and misrepresenting sentence exposure, raises a facially valid claim requiring a hearing, while other claims r
• United States v. FOX
  941 F.2d 480· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court's failure to explicitly inform the defendant of the possibility of restitution was harmless error, and that his sentence did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
• United States v. Cole
  813 F.2d 43· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 13×
  A district court must make further inquiry into a defendant's competence to enter a guilty plea when informed of recent drug use, and failure to do so violates Rule 11.
• United States v. Thibodeaux
  811 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district judge's failure to explicitly inform the defendant that he could not withdraw his plea if the court did not accept the government's sentence recommendation was harmless error because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights.
• Mayes v. Pickett
  537 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 13×·via Rule 11 Hearing
  A guilty plea generally waives independent claims of constitutional violations preceding the plea, but allegations of threats or promises outside the record may necessitate a hearing.
• United States v. Rowe
  631 F. 3d 1187· 11th Cir.· 2025-07-15 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that its prior precedent in United States v. Shannon is no longer binding because the Florida Supreme Court has since clarified that Florida's cocaine trafficking statute requires proof of possession, making it a controlled substance offense under federa
• United States v. Medina-Saldana
  911 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 12×
  A district court is not required to follow a government's sentencing recommendation made pursuant to a plea agreement, nor must it state its reasons for deviating from such a recommendation when the sentence is within the guideline range.
• United States v. Blair
  902 F.2d 323· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district court's failure to inform a defendant of the possibility of supervised release before accepting a guilty plea violates Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and affects substantial rights, requiring vacatur of the plea and sentence.
• United States v. Braxton
  903 F.2d 292· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-08 ·cited 12×
• United States v. Cortes
  895 F.2d 1245· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 12×
  A notice of appeal filed in a criminal case before the disposition of a motion for new trial is effective and does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
• United States v. Martin
  893 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(F)
  The court held that the district court must explicitly determine on the record whether a stipulation in a guilty plea specifically establishes a more serious offense than the offense of conviction before applying the guidelines for that more serious offense.
• United States v. Eni Fernandez
  887 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant, and therefore, the denial of her motion to suppress evidence was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Yasak
  884 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that a conditional guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) can be validly appealed even without a written reservation of rights, provided the government assents and the appeal will dispose of the case. The court also held that the defendant's arguments regarding l
• United States v. Padgett
  892 F.2d 445· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a restitution order imposed as a condition of probation was proper, even if the specific statutory basis was not explicitly stated at sentencing, as long as the requirements of the applicable statute (VWPA) were met.
• United States v. Jureidini
  846 F.2d 964· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plea agreement that frustrates the legitimate function of the Parole Commission and the bargain of the parties must be remedied.
• United States v. Williamson
  806 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and entered a voluntary guilty plea, and that a writ of error coram nobis was not justified.
• United States v. Allen
  804 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 12×
  A district court's acceptance of a guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis, potentially due to a misunderstanding of the defendant's admissions, requires remand for the court to make that determination.
• United States v. Duncan
  763 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(A)(2)
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by the pre-indictment delay and that the evidence seized from the vehicle was admissible under the Fourth Amendment's inventory search exception.
• United States v. McDOWELL Contractors, Inc.
  668 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court has jurisdiction to consider whether the district court had the authority to modify a plea agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(C), even if the issue was not raised below.
• Witherspoon v. United States
  633 F.2d 1247· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while a stipulation of facts may have the practical effect of a guilty plea, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not strictly apply when no guilty plea is formally entered and the primary issue is a constitutional challenge.
• United States v. Eleas Dabdoub-Diaz
  599 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice to warrant withdrawal of his guilty plea and that his claim of a broken plea bargain was unsupported by evidence, thus denying his motion.
• United States v. Fournier
  594 F.2d 276· 1st Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 12×·via Rule 11 Hearing
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea without a hearing and without stating its reasons.
• United States v. Kriz
  586 F.2d 1178· 8th Cir.· 1978-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 and that the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unsubstantiated, affirming the denial of the motion to vacate.
• Horsley v. United States
  583 F.2d 670· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the district court adequately discharged its obligations under Rule 11 by informing the defendant of the nature of the charges and determining his understanding.
• United States v. Kirkland
  578 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 12×
  A defendant's contention that they did not knowingly and intelligently enter a guilty plea is unavailing when the record shows they understood and accepted the terms, especially after plea bargaining.
• United States v. Cumbie
  569 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 12×·via Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(1)
  The court held that the appeals regarding alleged failures to inform of maximum penalties and consideration of dropped charges were untimely and dismissed. The appeal concerning sentence reduction motions was affirmed as sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of
• United States v. Gino Victor del Prete
  567 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a guilty plea conviction must be vacated if the defendant was not fully informed of the mandatory special parole term as required by Rule 11.
• Johnson v. United States
  542 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that misinformation regarding a special parole term does not invalidate a guilty plea if the defendant was aware of the maximum sentence and received a less severe parole term than potentially advised by counsel.
• United States v. Montgomery
  529 F.2d 1404· 10th Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 12×
  A voluntary guilty plea precludes a defendant from later asserting that their right to self-representation was infringed.
• Hedman v. United States
  527 F.2d 20· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a defendant's allegations contradicting his sworn statements during a Rule 11 proceeding are insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate conviction.
• Rizzo v. United States
  516 F.2d 789· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-19 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea must have a factual basis, and the district court must ensure the defendant understands the charges and consequences, as required by Rule 11.
• Hernandez-Uribe v. United States
  515 F.2d 20· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was properly applied to establish the defendant's alien status based on a prior guilty plea, and the jury instruction reflecting this was not erroneous.
• Rosado v. United States
  510 F.2d 1098· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence without a hearing.
• Herrera v. United States
  507 F.2d 143· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to have his application for parole considered, as a legislative amendment retroactively granted parole eligibility.