United States v. Richard Luther Halfacre

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Richard Luther Halfacre

566 F.2d 534, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 3, 1978

Docket77-5567

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 566 F.2d 534 (United States v. Richard Luther Halfacre) 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. Richard Luther Halfacre, 566 F.2d 534, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12768 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Richard Halfacre was charged in a two count indictment with

(1) engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1), 924(a); and,

(2) selling, transferring or delivering a firearm without a license to a person whom he knew lived in another state. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(5) and 924(a).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Halfacre was convicted of the first count, and the second count was dismissed.

*535 In the plea agreement, Halfacre specifically reserved his right to appeal certain nonjurisdictional issues. It is obvious that Halfacre’s guilty plea was intimately tied to the reservation of his right to appeal. In United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir. 1973, 486 F.2d 1044 (en banc), this Court expressed its disapproval of this type of plea agreement. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Following Sepe, this Court in United States v. Mizell, 5 Cir. 1973, 488 F.2d 97, vacated a conviction pursuant to a similar plea agreement, to allow the defendant to plead anew. Although this Court reached a different result in United States v. Fernandez, 5 Cir. 1977, 556 F.2d 1246, Fernandez involved a distinguishable fact situation; and thus, Mizell dictates the preferred remedy.

The conviction is therefore vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court to allow the defendant to plead anew.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Richard Halfacre was charged in a two count indictment with

(1) engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1), 924(a); and,

(2) selling, transferring or delivering a firearm without a license to a person whom he knew lived in another state. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(5) and 924(a).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Halfacre was convicted of the first count, and the second count was dismissed.

*535 In the plea agreement, Halfacre specifically reserved his right to appeal certain nonjurisdictional issues. It is obvious that Halfacre’s guilty plea was intimately tied to the reservation of his right to appeal. In United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir. 1973, 486 F.2d 1044 (en banc), this Court expressed its disapproval of this type of plea agreement. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Following Sepe, this Court in United States v. Mizell, 5 Cir. 1973, 488 F.2d 97, vacated a conviction pursuant to a similar plea agreement, to allow the defendant to plead anew. Although this Court reached a different result in United States v. Fernandez, 5 Cir. 1977, 556 F.2d 1246, Fernandez involved a distinguishable fact situation; and thus, Mizell dictates the preferred remedy.

The conviction is therefore vacated, and this case is remanded to the district court to allow the defendant to plead anew.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F.2d 534, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-luther-halfacre-ca5-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack