Joe Villarreal v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Joe Villarreal v. United States

508 F.2d 1132, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5748

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1974

Docket74-1811

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 508 F.2d 1132 (Joe Villarreal 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

Joe Villarreal v. United States, 508 F.2d 1132, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5748 (9th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In 1965, Villarreal pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of ten and twenty years. Starting in 1967, he filed petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate these sentences on the grounds that he had lacked understanding of the consequence of his plea and that the plea had been induced by representations from his counsel that his total sentence would not exceed fifteen years. In Villarreal v. United States, 461 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1972), we held that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted on these allegations. After conducting the hearing the district court reaffirmed its earlier opinion that the allegations were without merit. We affirm.

At the time the plea was entered, Villarreal stated that he knew he could receive a maximum sentence of twenty-five years and fine of $10,000 “on each count.” He was thus effectively aware that consecutive sentences totalling fifty years could be given. Hinds v. United States, 429 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1970). There was more than ample evidence to support a finding by the district court that no promise was made by the Government that the sentence would be limited to fifteen years. Villarreal’s guilty plea is not rendered involuntary merely because his attorney told him that the court would “probably” give him such a lesser sentence. Ballinger v. United States, 470 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1972).

Villarreal’s final argument on appeal is that he had a right to be present at the evidentiary hearing. We think, *1134 however, that in view of the numerous affidavits filed in this case, the district court was correct in concluding that the facts could be fully investigated without requiring Villarreal’s presence. See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).

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

OPINION

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In 1965, Villarreal pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of ten and twenty years. Starting in 1967, he filed petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate these sentences on the grounds that he had lacked understanding of the consequence of his plea and that the plea had been induced by representations from his counsel that his total sentence would not exceed fifteen years. In Villarreal v. United States, 461 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1972), we held that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted on these allegations. After conducting the hearing the district court reaffirmed its earlier opinion that the allegations were without merit. We affirm.

At the time the plea was entered, Villarreal stated that he knew he could receive a maximum sentence of twenty-five years and fine of $10,000 “on each count.” He was thus effectively aware that consecutive sentences totalling fifty years could be given. Hinds v. United States, 429 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1970). There was more than ample evidence to support a finding by the district court that no promise was made by the Government that the sentence would be limited to fifteen years. Villarreal’s guilty plea is not rendered involuntary merely because his attorney told him that the court would “probably” give him such a lesser sentence. Ballinger v. United States, 470 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1972).

Villarreal’s final argument on appeal is that he had a right to be present at the evidentiary hearing. We think, *1134 however, that in view of the numerous affidavits filed in this case, the district court was correct in concluding that the facts could be fully investigated without requiring Villarreal’s presence. See Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 F.2d 1132, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-villarreal-v-united-states-ca9-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack