Kermit Arthur Belgarde, and v. United States of America, And

Ninth Circuit

Kermit Arthur Belgarde, and v. United States of America, And

426 F.2d 746, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1970

Docket23864_1

StatusPublished

This text of 426 F.2d 746 (Kermit Arthur Belgarde, and v. United States of America, And) 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

Kermit Arthur Belgarde, and v. United States of America, And, 426 F.2d 746, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, charged with first degree murder for the killing of his father and brother, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and complained that the trial court did not comply with Rule 11 Fed.Rules of Crim.Procedure. He relied upon McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and Heiden v. United States (9 Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 53. His plea of guilty had been entered on May 27, 1965. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.

Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969) held that McCarthy, supra, was not retroactive and applied only to pleas entered after April 2, 1969, the date of McCarthy. Castro v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 345, held that Heiden, supra, was not retroactive and did not apply to pleas entered before November 2, 1965, the date of Heiden.

The trial court found that there was compliance with Rule 11 as it read in 1965; that the court before accepting the plea ascertained the plea was voluntary and that the appellant, at the time of entering the plea, knew the applicable penalties for the offenses of first and second degree murder. The court was not required to advise him of penalties for all lesser included offenses.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, charged with first degree murder for the killing of his father and brother, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and complained that the trial court did not comply with Rule 11 Fed.Rules of Crim.Procedure. He relied upon McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and Heiden v. United States (9 Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 53. His plea of guilty had been entered on May 27, 1965. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.

Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969) held that McCarthy, supra, was not retroactive and applied only to pleas entered after April 2, 1969, the date of McCarthy. Castro v. United States (9 Cir. 1968) 396 F.2d 345, held that Heiden, supra, was not retroactive and did not apply to pleas entered before November 2, 1965, the date of Heiden.

The trial court found that there was compliance with Rule 11 as it read in 1965; that the court before accepting the plea ascertained the plea was voluntary and that the appellant, at the time of entering the plea, knew the applicable penalties for the offenses of first and second degree murder. The court was not required to advise him of penalties for all lesser included offenses.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F.2d 746, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kermit-arthur-belgarde-and-v-united-states-of-america-and-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack