United States v. Kay

537 F.2d 1077
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 23, 1976·No. No. 75-3844·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We do not think that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to permit Kay to withdraw his guilty plea. Kay did not attempt to withdraw his plea until after his codefendants had been sentenced. At that time he realized that adherence to his plea bargain would result in his imprisonment. Under these circumstances, his situation is akin to that of a defendant who seeks to withdraw his plea after sentencing. The district judge could reasonably have concluded that withdrawal of the plea would have permitted “appellant to use the guilty plea as a means of testing the weight of the potential sentence — a primary policy ground for denying plea changes.” United States v. Simmons, 497 F.2d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1974).

We find no merit to Kay’s contention that he was inadequately represented by his counsel.

Affirmed.

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

United States v. Kay, 537 F.2d 1077 (9th Cir. 1976).

537 F.2d 1077 (United States v. Kay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Juan Gabriel Ruiz
229 F.3d 1240 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Jeffrey Kroening
15 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Paulson
798 F. Supp. 634 (D. Montana, 1992)
United States v. Hector Martin Ramos
923 F.2d 1346 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Hector Hernan Hoyos
868 F.2d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Collado-Gomez
674 F. Supp. 426 (E.D. New York, 1987)
Travelstead v. State
689 P.2d 494 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 1984)
United States v. Roberto Navarro-Flores
628 F.2d 1178 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. David J. Kay
537 F.2d 1077 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)