Monroe v. Huff, 8767.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8767.,8767. |
| Citation | 79 US App. DC 246,145 F.2d 249 |
| Parties | Charles MONROE v. HUFF. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. James M. Earnest, of Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.
Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
This appeal is from summary denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of escaping from custody and is serving a sentence of one to three years. The petition, prepared without the help of counsel, asserts that the attorney who advised the plea was Petitioner's present counsel, appointed by the court, submits that if these statements are true petitioner did not intelligently consent to waive a jury trial and that a hearing should therefore be held to determine the truth of the statements.
We cannot accept this view. Petitioner knew that he was charged with escaping from custody and that he could choose whether to stand trial or plead guilty. There is nothing to show that he did not profit by his plea, for he might have been given a maximum of five years. But even if he gained nothing by the plea it would not follow that his decision was unwise; and even if it was unwise it would not follow that it was not intelligently made. The substance of his allegations is that he pleaded guilty on the advice of his counsel and received a longer sentence than both hoped. If that were sufficient to show that his plea was not intelligently made few, if any, convictions and sentences on pleas of guilty would be valid. A mere disappointed expectation of great leniency does not vitiate a plea.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. LaVallee
...United States v. Lowe, 173 F.2d 346 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 944, 69 S.Ct. 1499, 93 L.Ed. 1747 (1949); Monroe v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 145 F.2d 249 (1944). A hearing, at which time the habeas court may call the participants to the conference in chambers — the appellant, his at......
-
Dorsey v. Gill
...Officer." "May 14. Sentenced — 3 to 9 years to run concurrently with Criminal Nos. 69806 and 69807. McGuire, J." 112 Monroe v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 145 F.2d 249. 113 Diggs v. Welch, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 148 F.2d 667. 114 Achtien v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 989, 992; Diggs v. Welch, ___......
-
State ex rel. Richmond v. Henderson
...80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857 (1945). 'A mere disappointed expectation of great leniency does not vitiate a plea'. Monroe v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 246, 145 F.2d 249 (1944). In the cited cases there were no allegations that any part was taken in the misrepresentation by anyone other than t......
-
Eyman v. Alford
...disappointed.\' (Emphasis supplied.) Comment, Assistance of Counsel, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 1434, 1441, (May 1965). And see Monroe v. Huff, 79 U.S.App. D.C. 246, 145 F.2d 249 (1944)." The federal standard on withdrawal of a guilty plea is also discretionary under Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of ......