James Edward Jones v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden

Fifth Circuit

James Edward Jones v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden

434 F.2d 253, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6284

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1970

Docket30534_1

StatusPublished

This text of 434 F.2d 253 (James Edward Jones v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Edward Jones v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, 434 F.2d 253, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6284 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us from the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate and set aside sentences entered on pleas of guilty. We affirm. 1

Appellant contends that his privately retained counsel misled him into thinking that he was going to get a harsh sentence if he did not plead guilty. Thus, it is urged, his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily. We find no merit in these assertions.

Appellant was charged in two indictments with nineteen counts involving receiving, possessing and converting articles stolen from the United States mail, namely, various treasury checks and postal money orders. After the government had concluded its case in the trial on one of the indictments, appellant’s attorney advised him that he felt that since they had no defense, he could get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty. Appellant changed his plea to one count of that indictment. Approximately ten days later he changed his plea to one count of the second indictment. The remaining seventeen counts were dismissed by the government.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found with ample support in the record that petitioner made a knowing and voluntary change of his plea in each instance. Rule 11, F.R.Crim. P., was fully complied with as is shown by the transcript of the proceedings.

*254 The district court further found that appellant was adequately represented by privately retained counsel. This finding is in no sense erroneous. Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 1136.

The judgment of the district court is due to be and it is affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us from the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate and set aside sentences entered on pleas of guilty. We affirm. 1

Appellant contends that his privately retained counsel misled him into thinking that he was going to get a harsh sentence if he did not plead guilty. Thus, it is urged, his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily. We find no merit in these assertions.

Appellant was charged in two indictments with nineteen counts involving receiving, possessing and converting articles stolen from the United States mail, namely, various treasury checks and postal money orders. After the government had concluded its case in the trial on one of the indictments, appellant’s attorney advised him that he felt that since they had no defense, he could get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty. Appellant changed his plea to one count of that indictment. Approximately ten days later he changed his plea to one count of the second indictment. The remaining seventeen counts were dismissed by the government.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found with ample support in the record that petitioner made a knowing and voluntary change of his plea in each instance. Rule 11, F.R.Crim. P., was fully complied with as is shown by the transcript of the proceedings.

*254 The district court further found that appellant was adequately represented by privately retained counsel. This finding is in no sense erroneous. Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 1136.

The judgment of the district court is due to be and it is affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 253, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-edward-jones-v-olin-g-blackwell-warden-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack