McCullough v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1011.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1011. |
| Citation | 231 F. Supp. 740 |
| Parties | Willis Lee McCULLOUGH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Willis Lee McCullough, pro se.
Clinton Ashmore, U. S. Atty., Murray Wadsworth, Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondent.
This cause came on for consideration of petition filed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It appears that the petitioner has complied with the Rules of this Court in this regard and that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
It further appears from the motion itself and from an examination of the records and files herein, including transcript of his arraignment on December 11, 1962, that Willis Lee McCullough was not informed, in open court, of sentencing provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act prior to his plea of guilty but was, in fact, informed in open court of the adult offender sentencing provisions of the Dyer Act. Subject was thereafter sentenced under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act. This Court concludes that the case of Pilkington v. United States, 4 Cir., 315 F.2d 204, correctly states the requirements of the law in this regard, that is, that a defendant subject to the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act must be informed of its penalties prior to the Court's accepting a plea of guilty from said defendant in the event the Federal Youth Corrections Act is actually used by the Court in subsequent sentencing.
The Court does not now decide that this petitioner is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As stated in Pilkington, whether the guilty plea was made voluntarily and understandably is a question of fact to be determined after an inquiry. The Court does hold now, however, that a guilty plea cannot be considered to have been voluntarily and understandably made if, in fact, the defendant was made subject to the sentencing provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act without his being informed of its provisions prior to his plea. Hearing may disclose that this defendant, McCullough, before pleading guilty was actually aware of the possible penalties under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, having been informed by his attorney, or by the Probation Officer with whom he may have conferred prior to trial, or by someone else. Upon the face of this record, as indicated above, a hearing is plainly required.
Prior to the Court's setting a specific date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brodkowicz v. Swenson, Civ. A. No. 20119-3.
...U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009. See also Pilkington v. United States, 4 Cir., 315 F.2d 204, 210; McCullough v. United States, D.C.Fla., 231 F.Supp. 740, 741. "But due process is concerned in such a situation only with whether voluntariness and understanding existed. It is n......
-
United States ex rel. Leeson v. Damon, 670
...v. United States, 353 F.2d 312, 314 (8th Cir. 1965); Matthews v. United States, 308 F.Supp. 456 (S.D.N.Y.1969); McCullough v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 740 (N.D.Fla.1964). Kotz, Matthews and McCullough are particularly pertinent to the case at bar for they involved instances, albeit under ......
-
Brown v. United States
...Rowe v. United States, D.C.W.D. Wis., 227 F.Supp. 666; Williams v. United States, D.C.E.D.Ky., 231 F.Supp. 382; McCullough v. United States, D.C. N.D.Fla., 231 F.Supp. 740; Marvel v. United States, 380 U.S. 262, 85 S.Ct. 953, 13 L.Ed.2d 960; Hale v. United States, 10 Cir., 347 F.2d 367; Wor......
-
Rawls v. United States
...we called attention to district court cases, including one decided by a District Judge in the Fifth Circuit (McCullough v. United States, N.D.Fla.1964, 231 F.Supp. 740) that followed Pilkington rather than Cunningham. We also understand that the Department of Justice has directed all United......