Ronald Michael Combs v. United States

391 F.2d 1017, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 1968
Docket22107
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 391 F.2d 1017 (Ronald Michael Combs 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
Ronald Michael Combs v. United States, 391 F.2d 1017, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556 (9th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After appellant pled guilty to a charge of violating the Dyer Act, the district court, proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, gave him an indeterminate sentence that can entail a six year restraint on his liberty. The maximum sentence for the substantive offense with which he was charged is five years. (18 U.S.C. § 2312).

Appellant’s sole contention is that his guilty plea was made without the requisite “understanding of the * * * consequences * * *.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11; Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). The record shows and appellant acknowledges that upon his arraignment he was informed by the court that he might be dealt with under the Youth Act or as an adult offender, and that he was further informed of the maximum sentences permissible in either event [see Freeman v. United States, 350 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. (1965)]; but he argues that the court was obliged to advise him under which Act he would be sentenced.

His contention lacks merit. He was entitled to know the maximum possible sentence that the court could legally impose, but he was not entitled to a commitment from the court as to its probable disposition of him. The Rule 11 requirement was fully met when he was made “aware of the range of sentences to which the plea expose[d] him.” Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204, 210 (4th Cir. 1963), cited with approval by this court in Freeman v. United States, supra, 350 F.2d at 943.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Johnson v. Mullen
390 A.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1978)
Steven Frank Burns v. United States
552 F.2d 828 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
Edward Bunker v. Jack Wise
550 F.2d 1155 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
United States v. Walter Harris, Sr.
534 F.2d 141 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
Douglas Fruchtman v. Frank Kenton, Warden
531 F.2d 946 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
United States v. John Craige Terrack
515 F.2d 558 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Edwards
379 F. Supp. 617 (M.D. Florida, 1974)
United States v. John A. Blair
470 F.2d 331 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Donald P. Myers
451 F.2d 402 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Flores v. United States
337 F. Supp. 45 (D. Puerto Rico, 1971)
State v. Hooper
487 P.2d 394 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. Jacques Rene Henri Vermeulen
436 F.2d 72 (Second Circuit, 1970)
Marcus Laverne Sherburne v. United States
433 F.2d 1350 (Eighth Circuit, 1970)
Myers v. United States
319 F. Supp. 326 (C.D. California, 1970)
John Marshall v. United States
431 F.2d 355 (Seventh Circuit, 1970)
William R. Durant v. United States
410 F.2d 689 (First Circuit, 1969)
Ingram v. State
450 P.2d 161 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
391 F.2d 1017, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-michael-combs-v-united-states-ca9-1968.