Meaton v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20399.,20399. |
| Citation | 328 F.2d 379 |
| Parties | Bernard Cyril MEATON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Morison Buck, Tampa, Fla., for appellant.
Arnold D. Levine, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was charged by a five-count indictment with a mail fraud offense. On October 12, 1962, he entered a plea of not guilty. On December 10, 1962, the case was ready for trial with a number of witnesses present pursuant to subpoena. The appellant, with counsel and upon advice of counsel, entered a plea of guilty. He was questioned by the court in order to determine whether the plea was voluntary. A postal inspector related the facts as shown by the investigation of the Post Office Department. The appellant stated that he would accept the statement.
Two days later the court was informed that the appellant then desired to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty. His reason, as stated to the court, was that "I was not told that probation means loss of citizenship, loss of voting rights, loss of getting a passport, and that I couldn't leave this area." It was brought out that, prior to the tender of the plea of guilty, the appellant had been informed by his attorney that if he pled guilty he could be sentenced to five years in prison, and that he would have a criminal record. He had not been informed that as a convicted felon he would be deprived of some of the privileges of citizenship such as voting and foreign travel. Later on in his colloquy with the court, the appellant stated that he was not guilty because of the absence of any intent to defraud.
A formal motion was filed seeking leave to withdraw the plea of guilty, to which was annexed an affidavit of the appellant stating that at the time he entered a plea of guilty he confidently expected probation. Nothing had been said to the appellant by Government counsel or his own that could form a basis for such an expectation. The court denied the motion and imposed an eighteen-month sentence, from which this appeal has been taken. Three specifications of error are assigned on the appeal; first, that it was error not to permit the withdrawal of the plea of guilty; second, that the warrant and all subsequent proceedings were invalid because the warrant did not describe the offense charged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborn v. State
...States v. Webster, 468 F.2d 769 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 934, 93 S.Ct. 1385, 35 L.Ed.2d 597 (1973); Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 902, 13 L.Ed.2d 801 (1965); Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 538, p......
-
State v. Aquino, 24431.
...to vote; United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180, 182 (3d Cir. 1963); loss of the right to travel freely abroad; Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379, 380-81 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 902, 13 L.Ed.2d 801 (1965); loss of civil service employment; United States v. C......
-
People v. Pozo
...cert. denied, 402 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 1390, 28 L.Ed.2d 653 (1971) (possibility of imposition of consecutive sentences); Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 902, 13 L.Ed.2d 801 (1965) (deprivation of rights to vote and to travel abroad); ......
-
People v. Lewis
...Belliard, 20NY3d 381 at 385). Instances of such consequences include the loss of the right to vote or travel abroad ( Meaton v. U.S., 328 F.2d 379 [1964] ), loss of civil service employment ( U.S. v. Crowley, 529 F.2d 1066 [1976] ), loss of a driver's license ( Moore v. Hinton, 513 F.2d 781......
-
The Paradox of Recidivism
...does not constitute ex post facto punishment).224. United States v. Parrino, 212 F.2d 919, 920-21 (2d Cir. 1954); Meaton v. United States, 328 F.2d 379, 380-81 (5th Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Durante v. Holton, 228 F.2d 827, 830 (7th Cir. 1956); Munich v. United States, 337 F.2d 356,......