Curtis v. United States, 5156.
| Decision Date | 14 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5156.,5156. |
| Citation | 268 A.2d 603 |
| Parties | Leon R. CURTIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Leonard I. Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., appointed by this court for appellant.
Kenneth M. Robinson, Asst.U.S.Atty., with whom Thomas A. Flannery, U.S.Atty., John A. Terry and Richard Stukey, Asst. U.S.Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and FICK-LING and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.
Appellant, accompanied by counsel appeared in open court and tendered a plea of guilty to a charge of petit larceny.1 Before accepting the plea, the trial court properly made personal inquiry of appellant in the following manner:
Q. Mr. Curtis, you are charged with petit larceny. How do you plead to this charge, guilty or not guilty?
A. Guilty.
Q. Mr. Curtis, did you on or about December 20, 1968 take and carry away with the intent to steal, certain property of value consisting of four men's shirts, the property of Peoples Drug Stores, Inc?
A. Yes.
Q. In entering your plea of guilty, are you entering it of your own free will? Is anyone making you or gfourilctiyng you to enter this plea of
A. No Q. Mr. Curtis, are you entering this plea of guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason? Did you take four shirts from Peoples Drug Store?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Curtis, do you realize that you can receive up to 360 days in jail for this offense? Do you still wish to enter your plea of guilty?
A. Yes.
The court will accept your plea of guilty.
The next day appellant was committed to the Youth Corrections Center at Occoquan, Virginia, pursuant to the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. (), for evaluation to determine whether he should be sentenced under the Act. Thereafter, appellant again appeared before the same trial judge who then indicated he was about to sentence him under the Act. Appellant objected to being sentenced under the Act as he "understood" he could be confined up to 6 years if so sentenced. The terms of confinement under the Act were explained to appellant by the court and appellant's counsel. However, appellant still objected and asked the court if he could withdraw his plea of guilty and have a trial, stating then that he was not guilty of the charge. Appellant's request was denied and he was sentenced under the Act.
On this appeal appellant contends the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty after informing him that he could receive up to 360 days in jail but without informing him that he might also be sentenced under the Act and be confined for more than 360 days.
In Harvin v. United States, D.C.App., 245 A.2d 307 (1968), we held that the trial court has jurisdiction to impose sentence under the Act.2 Harvin was sentenced after trial and conviction on his plea of not guilty, but in note 11 and 311, we took occasion to say that a defendant may challenge a plea of guilty if prior to acceptance of his plea he is not informed of the possibility of a longer confinement under the Act, citing Carter v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F.2d 283 (1962). The question in Carter was very similar to the one here, except that Carter had not moved in the trial court to withdraw his plea. Without expressly deciding the question, the court held that as the record there did not disclose that Carter had in fact relied on the trial court's explanation that the maximum punishment for the misdemeanor was 1 year, the case should be remanded to the trial court, with permission to Carter to move to withdraw his plea of guilty.
We think the clear implication in Carter is that if the trial court accepts a plea of guilty after informing the defendant that the maximum penalty which may be imposed is 1 year but does not inform him that he may be sentenced under the Act and confined for more than 1 year, the defendant when faced with sentence under the Act may withdraw his plea of guilty. This is the express holding in several of the circuits. See James v. United States, 388 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1968); Johnson v. United States, 374 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1967); Harper v. United States, 368 F.2d 53 (10th Cir. 1966); Freeman v. United States, 350 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1965); Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204 (4th Cir. 1963).
The reason underlying this holding is that since a plea of guilty is in effect a conviction it should not be accepted by the court "unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences."3 An understanding of the consequences of the plea includes knowledge of the penalties which the defendant may receive. The present Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly recognizes this and requires that the court personally address the defendant and determine "that the plea is mode voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea."4 The present Criminal Rule 11 of the trial court, effective January 1, 1970, is quite similar to the Federal Rule. The trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Colson
...facts alleged by the government. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). See Curtis v. United States, D.C. App., 268 A.2d 603 (1970). Hence respondent's conviction became final as soon as Judge Gesell sentenced him upon his plea. The finality of the convi......
-
United States v. Curtis, Crim. No. 1052-70.
...of 3 to 15 years pronounced against him. This defendant was not unfamiliar with courts and court procedures. See Curtis v. United States, D.C.App., 268 A.2d 603 (1970). In that case this defendant had plead to a misdemeanor in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions. The Judge, i......