Anderson v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-278 Civ.,69-278 Civ. |
| Parties | Rudolph J. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Rudolph J. Anderson, pro se.
William R. Burkett, U. S. Atty., Western District of Okl., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
Petitioner has presented to the Court a Motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Petitioner seeks relief from the sentence imposed by this Court on July 25, 1965 following his plea of guilty to charges involving violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 495 and § 1708. Petitioner, then in state custody, was borrowed from Oklahoma for arraignment and sentencing and then returned to Oklahoma. The sentence imposed was ordered to run consecutively to any sentence of confinement imposed by Oklahoma state authorities for an unrelated offense under the laws of Oklahoma and for which Petitioner was then held in custody. The state sentence has been completed and Petitioner is now in federal custody.
Petitioner asserts as grounds for his Motion the allegations that the Court did not comply with Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P., 18 U.S.C.A., in that the Court did not advise him before he plead guilty when his sentence would begin to run, "and whereas the Petitioner took for granted he became a federal prisoner upon imposing of the federal sentence." Petitioner cites the recent case of McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) in support of his contention. The McCarthy case must be read in the light of a subsequent decision, Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969), which held that McCarthy did not apply to pleas accepted before Rule 11 was amended in 1966. At the time Petitioner's plea of guilty was accepted on July 14, 1965, the Rule had not been amended and McCarthy does not apply. On July 14, 1965, the Rule read, in part:
"The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge." Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P., 18 U.S.C.A.
Petitioner does not raise any matter in contravention of Rule 11 as quoted above. The Rule does not impose on the Court any duty to inform the Petitioner before he pleads guilty of the date when his federal sentence is to begin to run. The matter of determining if a federal sentence is to run concurrent with or consecutive to a state sentence is a part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Myers
...at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. . . ." 2 The Government relies upon Anderson v. United States (W.D.Okl.1969) 302 F. Supp. 387, aff'd on other grounds, 405 F. 2d 493, which held that Rule 11 does not require trial courts to inform a defendant in state ......
-
Alaway v. United States
...v. Nichols, 142 U.S. App.D.C. 194, 440 F.2d 222 (1971); Opela v. United States, 415 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1969); Anderson v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 387 (W.D.Okl.1969). Although Hinds v. United States, 429 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1970) which held that Rule 11 does not require a Defendant to be ......
-
Faulisi v. Daggett, 75--1209
...he was thus effectively aware that consecutive sentences totalling 50 years could be given. To like effect are Anderson v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 387 (W.D.Okl.1969), aff'd on other grounds, 405 F.2d 492 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 965, 89 S.Ct. 1318, 22 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969), ......
-
Williams v. U.S., 73-1452
...support in United States v. Myers, 451 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1972). We prefer the reasoning of Judge Daugherty in Anderson v. United States, 302 F.Supp. 387 (W.D.Okl.1969), aff'd, 405 F.2d 492 (10th Cir. 1969), where it was held to the contrary. Subsequent to the Myers case, the Ninth Circuit ......