United States v. Edward King

604 F.2d 411, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 12, 1979
Docket79-1678
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 604 F.2d 411 (United States v. Edward King) 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. Edward King, 604 F.2d 411, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and set aside a sentence imposed upon Edward King by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In May, 1974, King was convicted on his guilty pleas of importing heroin on three occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). He received a ten year sentence for these offenses. Shortly thereafter, King was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import *412 heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 846, upon which conviction a 15 year consecutive sentence was imposed. This Court affirmed his conspiracy conviction on direct appeal. United States v. King, 517 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1975).

In 1977, King filed with the sentencing court a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion seeking to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed thereon in the conspiracy case. He claimed invalidity on the ground that he was twice put in jeopardy and the fifteen year consecutive sentence constituted cruel, unusual and excessive punishment. The district court denied relief and this Court affirmed. King v. United States, 565 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1978).

In February, 1979, King filed another § 2255 motion, this time seeking to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence in the § 952(a) case (importation of heroin) in which he pleaded guilty. In the district court King contended that there was noncompliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and further contended that his pleas were not voluntary since they were based on a plea agreement that was not honored. The district court denied relief. We affirm.

King contends that the district court erred in determining that there was a factual basis for the pleas without addressing him, and further erred in that the court did not personally address him regarding his withdrawing his previously entered not guilty pleas.

Rule 11 as it existed prior to 1975 was as follows:

A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.

A review of the record reflects that the district court did personally address King or his attorney in King’s presence in open court, not only respecting the voluntariness of the tendered pleas but also as to the factual basis therefor. 1

*414 To the extent that the district court did not address the defendant personally on the question of a factual basis for the pleas there was no violation of Rule 11. As long as the factual basis is developed on the record, it may come from several sources. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); Sassoon v. United States, 561 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1977).

To the extent that here neither the judge nor the prosecutor made the inquiry of the defendant personally, we hold that the plea proceedings in this instance do not reveal a “complete miscarriage of justice” and that the proceedings were not “inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir., 600 F.2d 476, No. 78-2540, August 6, 1979.

Finally, King contends that there was an unkept plea agreement to the effect that he would not be prosecuted on similar charges. The transcript, as set out in Footnote 1, absolutely refutes this contention. It is clear that the full agreement was a recommended ten year sentence. This King received.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Record, pp. 4-11:

THE COURT: The first case I would like to call would be the case of United States v. Edward King, Case Number 74-106.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Your Honor, the defendant is present.
THE COURT: Okay. Is the Government ready?
MR. BOWEN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Y’all have an announcement with regard to trial or any other announcement?
MR. SHEFFIELD: Yes, your honor. The Government had made a recommendation ánd it was carried over to today for the purpose of considering a plea and the recommendation, we have considered it, and we wish to enter a plea.
THE COURT: Mr. King, on April 19, 1974, you entered a plea of not guilty to the charges preferred against you in a three-count indictment which has been docketed in this Court as Case Number 74-106 and you and your attorney are here this morning to either answer those charges or to enter some other different plea and I’m advised by your attorney that you desire at this time to consider withdrawing your earlier plea of not guilty and .entering a plea of guilty. I will ask you have you had sufficient time to discuss this case with Mr. Sheffield, your attorney?
DEFENDANT KING: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied that you understand the charges that are preferred against you in this indictment?
DEFENDANT KING: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Sheffield, are you satisfied that this defendant- does in fact understand these charges?
MR. SHEFFIELD: Yes, Your Honor. I’ve discussed the matter on three separate occasions at length and in detail with the defendant.
THE COURT: All right. Do you desire then to withdraw your earlier plea of not guilty?
MR. SHEFFIELD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Withdrawal is allowed.

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

Related

State v. Littleghost
2025 ND 65 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2025)
State v. Yost
914 N.W.2d 508 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2018)
Mackey v. State
2012 ND 159 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2012)
G.E.G. v. State
54 So. 3d 949 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2010)
State v. Thomas
2000 WI 13 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2000)
Stanley v. Navajo Nation
6 Navajo Rptr. 284 (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, 1990)
United States v. Laurence Keiswetter
866 F.2d 1301 (Tenth Circuit, 1989)
State v. Bennett
370 S.E.2d 120 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Schulz
409 N.W.2d 655 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1987)
McCurley v. State
455 So. 2d 1014 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
United States v. Sawinski
16 M.J. 808 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
Yamada v. State
426 So. 2d 906 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
United States v. Frank Ammirato
670 F.2d 552 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Elias Montoya-Camacho
644 F.2d 480 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Dingler v. State
408 So. 2d 527 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1980)
Edward Lee Wright v. United States
624 F.2d 557 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 F.2d 411, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-king-ca5-1979.