Nagelberg v. United States, 785
| Decision Date | 25 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 785,785 |
| Citation | 12 L.Ed.2d 290,377 U.S. 266,84 S.Ct. 1252 |
| Parties | Gerson NAGELBERG v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Irwin Klein, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack, for the United States.
On April 11, 1962, petitioner pleaded not guilty to federal narcotics charges; thereafter, on July 18, 1962, he was permitted to withdraw this plea and plead guilty; in November 1962, when the case came on for sentencing, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea because of facts and circumstances which had changed since the time of the plea, including petitioner's extensive cooperation with the Government. The Government acquiesced in this motion, but the district judge denied it, holding that he had no power to permit withdrawal of the plea on such grounds. The court sentenced petitioner to the minimum statutory term of imprisonment and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 2 Cir., 323 F.2d 936.
The Government now says that it consented to petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea because it 'planned to dismiss the pending indictment against petitioner and substitute lesser charges.' The Government admits that this purpose was not expressly stated and that 'it may be that the court was misled.'
In these circumstances, we believe that the court has discretion to permit withdrawal of the plea. See Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gooding v. United States
...U.S. App.D.C. at 63 n. 10, 336 F.2d at 982 n. 10 ("not in itself dispositive"); accord, Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 266-67, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 1252-53, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964) (per curiam) (court has discretion to permit presentence withdrawal of guilty plea on grounds not including......
-
United States v. Washington, 14625.
...Prior to that time the allowance of the withdrawal is within the discretion of the district court. Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964); Lott v. United States, 367 U.S. 421, 426-427, 81 S.Ct. 1563, 6 L.Ed.2d 940 (1961); United States v. Shneer, 194 ......
-
Everett v. United States, 18239.
...States v. Nagelberg, 323 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (alternative ground), vacated on another ground, 377 U.S. 266, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964) (per curiam); United States v. Hughes, 325 F.2d 789, 792 (2d Cir.) (dictum that defendant must deny guilt), cert. denied, 377 U.S......
-
Gooding v. U.S.
...U.S. App.D.C. at 63 n. 10, 336 F.2d at 982 n. 10 ("not in itself dispositive"); accord, Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 266-67, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 1252-53, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964) (per curiam) (court has discretion to permit presentence withdrawal of guilty plea on grounds not including......
-
Nebraska Plea-based Convictions Practice: a Primer and Commentary
...193. 397 U.S. 790 (1970). 194. 397 U.S. 759 (1970). 195. See Brady, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). 196. Earlier, in Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266 (1964), the Court had ruled that the arraigning judge had discretionary authority to permit a defendant to withdraw an earlier plea of not guilt......