United States v. Ronald Lee McDaniel

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Ronald Lee McDaniel

425 F.2d 813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9202

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1970

Docket28963

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 425 F.2d 813 (United States v. Ronald Lee McDaniel) 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. Ronald Lee McDaniel, 425 F.2d 813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9202 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The sole question before us is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty entered after an earlier plea of not guilty. 1 The motion was filed some 40 days after defendant entered his guilty plea and two days before he was to be sentenced. The sole ground alleged was that he was “frightened and confused” when the guilty plea was made.

The defendant correctly states that the prerequisite of “manifest injustice” imposed by Rule 32(d) Fed.R.Cr. P. applies only to withdrawing a plea after sentence. But, as defendant acknowledges, withdrawal of a plea before sentencing is in the discretion of the trial court. Nothing that occurred in this case even remotely approached an abuse of discretion. Before accepting the plea the trial judge ascertained with the most meticulous and painstaking care that it was voluntarily entered and that defendant was fully aware of what he was doing. The District Judge complied fully with Rule 11, Fed.R.Cr.P. No contention is made that the plea was invalid, only that in the circumstances of its entry the court was guilty of abuse by not letting the valid plea be later withdrawn. We are unable to find any such abuse in this case.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our local Rule 18 we decide this case on the briefs and record.

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

PER CURIAM:

The sole question before us is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty entered after an earlier plea of not guilty. 1 The motion was filed some 40 days after defendant entered his guilty plea and two days before he was to be sentenced. The sole ground alleged was that he was “frightened and confused” when the guilty plea was made.

The defendant correctly states that the prerequisite of “manifest injustice” imposed by Rule 32(d) Fed.R.Cr. P. applies only to withdrawing a plea after sentence. But, as defendant acknowledges, withdrawal of a plea before sentencing is in the discretion of the trial court. Nothing that occurred in this case even remotely approached an abuse of discretion. Before accepting the plea the trial judge ascertained with the most meticulous and painstaking care that it was voluntarily entered and that defendant was fully aware of what he was doing. The District Judge complied fully with Rule 11, Fed.R.Cr.P. No contention is made that the plea was invalid, only that in the circumstances of its entry the court was guilty of abuse by not letting the valid plea be later withdrawn. We are unable to find any such abuse in this case.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our local Rule 18 we decide this case on the briefs and record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F.2d 813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-lee-mcdaniel-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack