Ladner v. Henderson, 30765 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 30765 Summary Calendar.,30765 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | Terry LADNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Terry Ladner, pro se.
William C. Pegues, III, DeRidder, La., for respondent-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Ladner appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
On March 29, 1968, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of escaping from the Louisiana Correctional and Industrial School, where he was then serving a five-year sentence for attempted armed robbery. He received an additional two-year sentence to run consecutively to his five-year sentence.
The appellant now complains that the state trial judge did not inform him that he would lose his accumulated "good time" and consideration for parole as a result of his plea of guilty. He contends that the failure to inform him of this prior to acceptance of the plea vitiated the guilty plea.
We do not agree. This collateral effect of the plea was too remote to require the sentencing court to advise him with regard to it, since it concerned an entirely different conviction. Moreover, it is not essential to the validity of a guilty plea, that non-eligibility for parole be explained to the defendant. See Onick v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 1292; Sanchez v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 494.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
* 1 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. U.S.
...1971). Cf. Johnson v. Dees, 581 F.2d 1166, 1167 (5th Cir. 1978) (possible denial of time off for good behavior); Ladner v. Henderson, 438 F.2d 638, 639 (5th Cir. 1971) (possible denial of good time and parole ineligibility). 5 In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 27......
-
Edwards v. State
...Tindall v. United States, 469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1972); Hutchison v. United States, 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971); Ladner v. Henderson, 438 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1971). But labelling the consequence as collateral does not diminish its significance. Indeed, the penalty of deportation has been re......
-
State v. Chung
...461, 465 (2d Cir.1974); Tindall v. U.S., 469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1972); Hutchison v. U.S., 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir.1971); Ladner v. Henderson, 438 F.2d 638 (5th Cir.1971). The second question is whether an attorney has an obligation to advise clients of potential collateral consequences of a gu......
-
Ware v. State, 51398
...United States v. Farias, 459 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1972), and Rosas v. U. S., 505 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1974). See also Ladner v. Henderson, 438 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1971). Appellant here received the full extent of that to which he was entitled. At his sentencing, on being belatedly advised that h......