Adolfo Zamora v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Adolfo Zamora v. United States

397 F.2d 254, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6427

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1968

Docket21458_1

StatusPublished

This text of 397 F.2d 254 (Adolfo Zamora v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adolfo Zamora v. United States, 397 F.2d 254, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6427 (9th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In his 2255 petition Zamora alleged that at the time he entered the plea of guilty to the charge of grand theft, upon which the conviction rests, he was unaware of the punishment provided for that crime. He asked that the sentence be vacated and the plea expunged and that he be allowed to plead anew.

The district court dismissed the petition without a hearing. This was *255 error. The record of Zamora’s arraignment for plea which was before the court below is insufficient to conclusively resolve the issue thus raised. To the contrary, it reveals that at the arraignment the court did not comply with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and first determine whether Zamora tendered the plea with the understanding of the nature of the charge. Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1963).

However, it does not follow that Zamora is, without more, entitled to the relief he seeks. Heiden v. United States, 353 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1965) upon which relies, was decided in 1965. Zamora entered his plea and was convicted in 1963. In the recent ease of Castro v. United States, 396 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. May 28, 1968), this court declined to apply the Heiden rule retroactively.

Thus, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded with direction to the district court to conduct a hearing on the petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In his 2255 petition Zamora alleged that at the time he entered the plea of guilty to the charge of grand theft, upon which the conviction rests, he was unaware of the punishment provided for that crime. He asked that the sentence be vacated and the plea expunged and that he be allowed to plead anew.

The district court dismissed the petition without a hearing. This was *255 error. The record of Zamora’s arraignment for plea which was before the court below is insufficient to conclusively resolve the issue thus raised. To the contrary, it reveals that at the arraignment the court did not comply with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and first determine whether Zamora tendered the plea with the understanding of the nature of the charge. Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1963).

However, it does not follow that Zamora is, without more, entitled to the relief he seeks. Heiden v. United States, 353 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1965) upon which relies, was decided in 1965. Zamora entered his plea and was convicted in 1963. In the recent ease of Castro v. United States, 396 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. May 28, 1968), this court declined to apply the Heiden rule retroactively.

Thus, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded with direction to the district court to conduct a hearing on the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 F.2d 254, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adolfo-zamora-v-united-states-ca9-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack