United States v. Charles Michael Rivas

477 F.2d 139, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10583
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 11, 1973
Docket72-3222
StatusPublished

This text of 477 F.2d 139 (United States v. Charles Michael Rivas) 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
United States v. Charles Michael Rivas, 477 F.2d 139, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10583 (5th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Charles Michael Rivas, was charged on May 18, 1972, in a two count indictment as follows:

Count I

Knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute for remuneration approximately two pounds and five ounces of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C., § 841(a)(1).

Count II

Knowingly and intentionally possessing a quantity of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C., § 844(a).

On June 2, 1972, Rivas was arraigned on the first count, it being specifically stated in open court that the second count was to be dismissed. The defendant, represented by counsel, was thoroughly interrogated not only by the United States Attorney but, ultimately, by the Court. In addition, the defendant stated that his counsel had gone over his rights with him “in detail”.

On September 29, almost four months after the arraignment, and a week before he was sentenced, represented by a different attorney, Rivas filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty.

After a hearing on October 2, 1972, this motion was denied. Sentence was imposed October 5. Rivas now appeals *140 from the denial of his motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

We affirm the action of the District Court because our perusal of the record convinces us beyond peradventure of a doubt that Rivas at all times thoroughly understood his rights, was exhaustively informed as to his situation, and knew that what might have been an “included offense” in the first count was being dismissed as embodied in the second count.

This appellant has in no way been over-reached, misinformed, or uninformed either as to his rights prior to the entry of the plea or as to the alternatives he might have pursued.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
477 F.2d 139, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-michael-rivas-ca5-1973.