Robert L. Cardillo v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert L. Cardillo v. United States

476 F.2d 631, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 1973

Docket72-2934

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 476 F.2d 631 (Robert L. Cardillo 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

Robert L. Cardillo v. United States, 476 F.2d 631, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10844 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1971), Robert L. Cardillo seeks to withdraw a guilty plea accepted by the District Judge on September 17, 1971, which resulted in a three-year sentence to run consecutively with a fifteen-year sentence imposed in another ease. Petitioner alleges, that his plea was involuntarily entered in violation of the principle announced in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), because he was induced to enter the plea by an unkept promise of a concurrent sentence. The promise was made by the Government when Cardillo first pled guilty on July 28, 1971. However, prior to sentencing Cardillo made a motion to withdraw his plea, and the motion was granted due to confusion about the agreement. When Cardillo came to trial on September 17, 1971, he once again asked to plead guilty, this time knowing he did so without the benefit of any promise from the Government regarding a concurrent sentence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1971), Robert L. Cardillo seeks to withdraw a guilty plea accepted by the District Judge on September 17, 1971, which resulted in a three-year sentence to run consecutively with a fifteen-year sentence imposed in another ease. Petitioner alleges, that his plea was involuntarily entered in violation of the principle announced in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), because he was induced to enter the plea by an unkept promise of a concurrent sentence. The promise was made by the Government when Cardillo first pled guilty on July 28, 1971. However, prior to sentencing Cardillo made a motion to withdraw his plea, and the motion was granted due to confusion about the agreement. When Cardillo came to trial on September 17, 1971, he once again asked to plead guilty, this time knowing he did so without the benefit of any promise from the Government regarding a concurrent sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F.2d 631, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-l-cardillo-v-united-states-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack