Earnest Norman, and v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Earnest Norman, and v. United States

429 F.2d 1310, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1970

Docket23998_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 1310 (Earnest Norman, and 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

Earnest Norman, and v. United States, 429 F.2d 1310, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7868 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a denial of an application for a writ of coram nobis relies on McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. It appears from McCarthy that a full compliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is required and that there must be a definite record made showing the plea of guilty was entered knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily.

Here Mr. Norman was not advised of the nature of the charge or the possible maximum penalties. He entered a plea of guilty solely as requested. He now asks that this court make the rule in McCarthy v. United States retroactive.

Under the rule of Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 833, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16, it appears that the rule in McCarthy v. United States was not to be applied retroactively and therefore would not apply to the conviction of Norman. This is not a case involving the violation of constitutional rights but merely a strict construction of Rule 11. Since the principal case of the appellant is not applied retroactively, the denial of the application for writ of coram nobis is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a denial of an application for a writ of coram nobis relies on McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. It appears from McCarthy that a full compliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is required and that there must be a definite record made showing the plea of guilty was entered knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily.

Here Mr. Norman was not advised of the nature of the charge or the possible maximum penalties. He entered a plea of guilty solely as requested. He now asks that this court make the rule in McCarthy v. United States retroactive.

Under the rule of Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 833, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16, it appears that the rule in McCarthy v. United States was not to be applied retroactively and therefore would not apply to the conviction of Norman. This is not a case involving the violation of constitutional rights but merely a strict construction of Rule 11. Since the principal case of the appellant is not applied retroactively, the denial of the application for writ of coram nobis is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 1310, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-norman-and-v-united-states-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack