Mccarthy V. United States

67 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Berry v. United States
  412 F.2d 189· 3d Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 74×
  Failure to inform a defendant of parole ineligibility when accepting a guilty plea vitiates the plea, as it prevents the defendant from understanding the consequences of their action.
• Keel v. United States
  585 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 72×
  The court affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motion, finding the government met its burden of proving the Rule 11 noncompliance was not a material factor in the petitioner's guilty plea.
• United States v. Journet
  544 F.2d 633· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 64×
  A guilty plea must be vacated if the district judge fails to explicitly inform the defendant of every element enumerated in Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P.
• Estes v. State
  294 So. 2d 122· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-04-30 ·cited 54×
  A trial court's failure to ascertain the factual basis for a guilty plea is not reversible error when the plea was the result of plea bargaining and the defendant does not contend that there was no factual basis for the plea.
• Lamadline v. State
  303 So. 2d 17· Fla.· 1974-11-06 ·cited 51×
  The record must affirmatively show that a defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to a sentencing jury, as granted by statute, for the death penalty.
• Wofford v. Louie L. Wainwright
  748 F.2d 1505· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 49×
  The district court did not violate due process by adopting the magistrate's credibility findings without holding a second evidentiary hearing.
• Jenkins v. United States
  420 F.2d 433· 10th Cir.· 1970-01-02 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the record did not conclusively show compliance with Rule 11 regarding the defendant's understanding of the consequences of his guilty plea, specifically the ineligibility for probation or parole.
• 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.
• Walker v. Caldwell
  476 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 45×
  Appointed counsel was ineffective because the attorney did not familiarize himself with the facts and petitioner pleaded guilty to felonies that were actually misdemeanors.
• United States ex rel. Ralph E. Hughes v. Rundle
  419 F.2d 116· 3d Cir.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the District Court correctly denied the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing and that the Boykin doctrine should not be applied retroactively.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• United States v. McWILLIAMS
  730 F.2d 1218· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-02 ·cited 30×
  A defendant cannot challenge a federal firearms conviction based on the invalidity of a prior predicate felony conviction, even if that conviction is constitutionally infirm.
• Gates v. United States
  515 F.2d 73· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 30×
  A federal prisoner is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if the sentencing court failed to inform them of parole ineligibility prior to accepting their guilty plea, and additionally, incorrectly informed them of parole eligibility at sentencing, as these compound errors co
• United States v. Rook
  424 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 30×
  A guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defenses, and the record demonstrated the defendant understood the charge and factual basis for his plea, even without a formal Rule 11 inquiry.
• Caputo v. Henderson
  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.
• Seymour Kloner v. United States
  535 F.2d 730· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the guilty plea was valid under Rule 11, but the parole revocation was unconstitutional due to lack of notice for one of the grounds.
• Wilkins v. Erickson
  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.
• United States v. Hunt
  413 F.2d 983· 4th Cir.· 1969-07-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the failure to interrogate defendants regarding their jury trial waiver and the imposition of four-year sentences did not constitute reversible error.
• Dominguez v. Henderson
  447 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Boykin v. Alabama, requiring inquiry into the voluntariness of guilty pleas, is not retroactive to pleas entered before its decision.
• Monett v. The United States
  419 F.2d 434· Ct. Cl.· 1969-12-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an agreement to undergo confinement necessarily implies an agreement to accept a reduction in grade if imposed by the court-martial, especially under Article 58a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
• United States v. Punch
  709 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the elements of the charges, specifically the knowledge requirement, constituted an "entire failure" to address a core concern of Rule 11, requiring automatic reversal.
• Sober v. Crist
  644 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-07 ·cited 18×
  A guilty plea does not waive claims regarding the effectiveness of counsel or the voluntariness of the plea, particularly if the plea was unintelligent due to lack of understanding of the crime's elements.
• United States v. Benthien
  434 F.2d 1031· 1st Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court's failure to inform a defendant of their appeal rights under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2) is not harmless error, even if the defendant was otherwise informed by counsel.
• Cantrell v. United States
  413 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a petitioner seeking to vacate sentences based on claims previously adjudicated or frivolous is not entitled to relief, especially when the claims are directed at lesser concurrent sentences.
• 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.
• 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.
• United States v. Jasper
  481 F.2d 976· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prior sentence, even if containing language that could be construed as illegal, does not necessarily require resentencing if it does not exceed the maximum permissible sentence on any one valid count.
• 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.
• Mordaqueo Moises Korenfeld v. United States
  451 F.2d 770· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The dissent argues that the guilty plea should be vacated because the Rule 11 proceedings did not demonstrate the defendant's awareness of the consequences of his plea, specifically ineligibility for parole.
• Lexington S. Lamb v. Estelle
  667 F.2d 492· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the appointment of counsel for evidentiary hearings, and the lack of counsel at such a hearing for the 1958 conviction requires vacating the dismissal of that conviction's challenge. The court affirm
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• EBY v. United States
  415 F.2d 319· 10th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 12×
  A guilty plea waives the privilege against self-incrimination, even if the underlying statute is later deemed unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment grounds.
• United States v. Laurence Keiswetter
  860 F.2d 992· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an Alford guilty plea, entered by a defendant protesting innocence, is invalid without strong evidence presented at the plea taking to substantiate guilt.
• Scranton v. Whealon
  514 F.2d 99· 6th Cir.· 1975-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plea of guilty was voluntarily made and that Boykin v. Alabama does not require a specific judicial colloquy for state court guilty pleas entered before Boykin was decided.
• Dickie Lee Lawrence v. Lake F. Russell
  430 F.2d 718· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's guilty plea was voluntary and that the district court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus was correct.
• Ellis Salem George v. United States
  421 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea, entered before the Supreme Court's decision in McCarthy v. United States, was not automatically invalidated by the trial judge's failure to comply with Rule 11.
• United States v. Briggs
  920 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-04 ·cited 8×
  A guilty plea to bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 requires a factual basis demonstrating the defendant defrauded a financial institution or obtained funds by false pretenses; a plea lacking such basis can be vacated, and the defendant may be allowed to plead anew.
• United States v. Saldana
  731 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 8×
  A defendant seeking collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for a Rule 11 violation must demonstrate actual prejudice, not just a technical failure of compliance.
• United States v. Jack
  686 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was validly accepted as he was informed of the charges and a factual basis existed, but the special parole term was improperly imposed for the conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Miller
  468 F.2d 1041· 4th Cir.· 1972-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the search of the defendant's handbag was lawful, the conviction must be reversed because the magistrate failed to properly inform the defendant of her right to a jury trial.
• United States v. Landry
  463 F.2d 253· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in not ensuring the defendant understood the charges and the factual basis for the guilty plea as required by Rule 11.
• United States v. Obie Diah Strother
  458 F.2d 424· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 8×
• Bongiorno v. United States
  424 F.2d 373· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty plea was voluntarily and intelligently made, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to vacate the sentence without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Walsh
  733 F.2d 31· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that although the imposition of a mandatory parole term not disclosed at the time of a guilty plea can constitute a substantial addition to the bargained-for sentence, a defendant's failure to object to the plea's voluntariness prior to sentencing precludes collate
• United States v. Sanchez
  650 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's procedure substantially complied with Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 11, and any minor deviations were harmless error.
• United States v. Kerby Keller
  594 F.2d 939· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court adequately informed the defendant of the maximum sentence by using the precise language of the statute, thus not violating Rule 11.