James L. Coody v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James L. Coody v. United States

588 F.2d 1089

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1979

Docket77-2096

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 588 F.2d 1089 (James L. Coody v. United States) 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 L. Coody v. United States, 588 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

This case having been considered on briefs by the court en banc pursuant to the order entered on June 19,1978, 576 F.2d 106 (5 Cir. 1978), it is ORDERED that the en banc Court convened to consider this case is hereby DISSOLVED and the cause is remanded to the panel.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We have reconsidered our decision in light of the court’s en banc opinion in Keel v. United States, 5 Cir. 1978, 585 F.2d 110, 113. Although plaintiff established that the trial court failed to comply literally with the requirements of Rule 11, no prejudice resulted from this failure in that the error was not of sufficient magnitude to amount to “a fundamental defect which inherently results in the miscarriage of justice,” nor, if the test mentioned in Judge Rubin’s concurring opinion is applied, was it “likely to have been a material factor affecting the petitioner’s decision to plead guilty.” The government has borne the burden of establishing that the defendant in fact understood the charges against him and the maximum penalty that could be imposed. Under these circumstances, the court’s failure to comply literally with Rule 11 could not have been a material factor in defendant’s decision to plead guilty.

So much of the panel opinion as reversed the district court and remanded for a new trial is vacated, and the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

BY THE COURT:

This case having been considered on briefs by the court en banc pursuant to the order entered on June 19,1978, 576 F.2d 106 (5 Cir. 1978), it is ORDERED that the en banc Court convened to consider this case is hereby DISSOLVED and the cause is remanded to the panel.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We have reconsidered our decision in light of the court’s en banc opinion in Keel v. United States, 5 Cir. 1978, 585 F.2d 110, 113. Although plaintiff established that the trial court failed to comply literally with the requirements of Rule 11, no prejudice resulted from this failure in that the error was not of sufficient magnitude to amount to “a fundamental defect which inherently results in the miscarriage of justice,” nor, if the test mentioned in Judge Rubin’s concurring opinion is applied, was it “likely to have been a material factor affecting the petitioner’s decision to plead guilty.” The government has borne the burden of establishing that the defendant in fact understood the charges against him and the maximum penalty that could be imposed. Under these circumstances, the court’s failure to comply literally with Rule 11 could not have been a material factor in defendant’s decision to plead guilty.

So much of the panel opinion as reversed the district court and remanded for a new trial is vacated, and the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 F.2d 1089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-l-coody-v-united-states-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack