United States v. Michael Joseph Battaglia, Jr.

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Michael Joseph Battaglia, Jr.

478 F.2d 854

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 1972

Docket72-1754

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 478 F.2d 854 (United States v. Michael Joseph Battaglia, Jr.) 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. Michael Joseph Battaglia, Jr., 478 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant pleaded guilty to passing counterfeit bills and was sentenced to five years. He then petitioned the Court to set aside the conviction or to modify the sentence.

There is no merit to appellant’s Rule 11 attack on his guilty plea so we will not disturb his conviction.

At the time of sentencing, the trial judge stated that he was taking into consideration certain facts which he believed to be true. The defendant says they are untrue. On consideratin of the motion, the judge said that he would have imposed the same sentence even if the facts were untrue. Although this may be so, we think it is better to assure the defendant that the alleged untrue facts will not affect his sentence by permitting him a hearing at which he may seek to remove any lingering doubt the court may have had about the true situation. The court should then reconsider the sentence in the light of the true facts as found after hearing.

Vacated and remanded for resentenc-ing.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant pleaded guilty to passing counterfeit bills and was sentenced to five years. He then petitioned the Court to set aside the conviction or to modify the sentence.

There is no merit to appellant’s Rule 11 attack on his guilty plea so we will not disturb his conviction.

At the time of sentencing, the trial judge stated that he was taking into consideration certain facts which he believed to be true. The defendant says they are untrue. On consideratin of the motion, the judge said that he would have imposed the same sentence even if the facts were untrue. Although this may be so, we think it is better to assure the defendant that the alleged untrue facts will not affect his sentence by permitting him a hearing at which he may seek to remove any lingering doubt the court may have had about the true situation. The court should then reconsider the sentence in the light of the true facts as found after hearing.

Vacated and remanded for resentenc-ing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-joseph-battaglia-jr-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack