Douglas Onick v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Douglas Onick v. United States

425 F.2d 1292, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9390

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 6, 1970·No. 28848_1·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5 Cir.R. 18.

Douglas Onick pleaded guilty to charges of possessing and selling heroin and marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 4705(a) and 4744(a). He was sentenced on November 16, 1961, to three terms of twenty years and one term of ten years, all to run concurrently.

In this motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he contends that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and understandingly made because the trial court failed to inform him that his sentence would not be subject to parole. The district court denied relief on the authority of Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 266, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 899, 88 S.Ct. 224, 19 L.Ed.2d 221.

*1293 In Trujillo, we held that Fed. R.Crim.P. Rule 11 does not require that the defendant be informed of his ineligibility for parole before a guilty plea can be accepted. We reaffirmed that holding in Sanchez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 494. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing. See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; 5 Cir.R. 18.

Douglas Onick pleaded guilty to charges of possessing and selling heroin and marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 4705(a) and 4744(a). He was sentenced on November 16, 1961, to three terms of twenty years and one term of ten years, all to run concurrently.

In this motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he contends that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and understandingly made because the trial court failed to inform him that his sentence would not be subject to parole. The district court denied relief on the authority of Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 266, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 899, 88 S.Ct. 224, 19 L.Ed.2d 221.

*1293 In Trujillo, we held that Fed. R.Crim.P. Rule 11 does not require that the defendant be informed of his ineligibility for parole before a guilty plea can be accepted. We reaffirmed that holding in Sanchez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 494. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Douglas Onick v. United States, 425 F.2d 1292, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9390 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

425 F.2d 1292 (Douglas Onick v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related