Government of Canal Zone v. Tobar T., 77-5404
| Decision Date | 10 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-5404,77-5404 |
| Citation | 565 F.2d 1321 |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF the CANAL ZONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel TOBAR T. (Tobar), Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Horace P. Rowley, III, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Violanti, U. S. Atty., Wallace D. Baldwin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Balbao, Canal Zone, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Tobar pled guilty to the charge of burglary enhanced by the Canal Zone's habitual criminal statute, Title 6 Canal Zone Code § 113. When pleading guilty, appellant was wrongly advised that the maximum allowable sentence was fifteen years when it is life imprisonment. Rule 11(c)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, mandates that a defendant pleading guilty be advised of the maximum sentence allowed by law.
Because the district court failed to comply with Rule 11 in accepting Tobar's guilty plea, Tobar must be allowed to plead anew. Sierra v. Government of Canal Zone, 5 Cir. 1977, 546 F.2d 77; McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); see United States v. Journet, 2 Cir. 1976, 544 F.2d 633.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Appleby v. Recht
...contrary authority, this authority does not discuss the advisory committee's note. See, e.g., Government of the Canal Zone v. Tobar T., 565 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir.1978) (per curiam). 6. We also note that the State says that it specifically informed Mr. Appleby's trial counsel that, if he was co......
-
U.S. v. Dayton
...F.2d 1229; United States v. Adams, 5 Cir. 1978, 566 F.2d 962; United States v. Hart, 5 Cir. 1978, 566 F.2d 977; Government of Canal Zone v. Tobar T., 5 Cir. 1978, 565 F.2d 1321. Subsequent developments reduced even further the number of cases that reached trial. Two of the defendants whose ......
-
Howard v. U.S.
...with a collateral attack on a guilty plea received in the absence of complete compliance with Rule 11. Relying on Government of Canal Zone v. Tobar T., 5 Cir., 565 F.2d 1321, another direct appeal decided on the summary calendar, the Keel panel held that Rule 11 collateral attacks should be......
-
Keel v. U.S.
...se rule requiring literal compliance with the language of the rule for the taking of a valid guilty plea. See Government of Canal Zone v. Tobar T., 565 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1978). This Per se rule was contrary to the prior law of this Circuit which held that erroneous maximum sentence inform......