United States v. Craig Otte

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Craig Otte

729 F.2d 1207, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23954

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1984

Docket83-1965

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 729 F.2d 1207 (United States v. Craig Otte) 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

United States v. Craig Otte, 729 F.2d 1207, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23954 (9th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SNEED, Circuit Judge:

Appellant seeks to correct his sentences by a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that his sentences should have been concurrent rather than consecutive. The basis for this contention is that the plea agreement contained a concurrent sentence recommendation which the sentencing court rejected without admonishing the appellant, as required by Rule 11(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P. Consecutive sentences were imposed although the balance of the plea agreement was accepted by the sentencing court. The motion to correct was denied by the district court. We affirm.

The failure of the sentencing court to comply with Rule 11(e)(2) under the facts of this case does not entitle the appellant to the correction he seeks. The record shows that appellant knew that the sentencing court did not have to accept the sentence proposed by the agreement. R.T. 16. A technical violation of Rule 11 does not entitle appellant to the relief he seeks. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979). Finally, it is well-settled that acceptance of a plea agreement does not require acceptance of its sentencing recommendation. See United States v. Henderson, 565 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1977).

AFFIRMED.

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

SNEED, Circuit Judge:

Appellant seeks to correct his sentences by a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that his sentences should have been concurrent rather than consecutive. The basis for this contention is that the plea agreement contained a concurrent sentence recommendation which the sentencing court rejected without admonishing the appellant, as required by Rule 11(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P. Consecutive sentences were imposed although the balance of the plea agreement was accepted by the sentencing court. The motion to correct was denied by the district court. We affirm.

The failure of the sentencing court to comply with Rule 11(e)(2) under the facts of this case does not entitle the appellant to the correction he seeks. The record shows that appellant knew that the sentencing court did not have to accept the sentence proposed by the agreement. R.T. 16. A technical violation of Rule 11 does not entitle appellant to the relief he seeks. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783-84, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 2087, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979). Finally, it is well-settled that acceptance of a plea agreement does not require acceptance of its sentencing recommendation. See United States v. Henderson, 565 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1977).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 F.2d 1207, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 23954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-craig-otte-ca9-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack