Newalk v. United States, 16823.
Decision Date | 29 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 16823.,16823. |
Parties | Edward Martin NEWALK, Robert William Devay and Jerome Adolph Blumson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
G. W. Gill, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
E. E. Talbot, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., M. Hepburn Many, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before JONES, BROWN, and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
Edward M. Newalk, Robert W. Devay, and Joseph A. Blumson, represented by an attorney, pleaded guilty to an information charging them with transporting a forged and falsely made check in interstate commerce. The information tracked the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314, and contained the words "with intent to defraud". After they were sentenced, the defendants, represented by another attorney, filed a motion to withdraw their plea of guilty on the ground that the plea was "an improvident act" in that "an essential element of the crime was missing, i. e. an intent to defraud". With this motion the defendants filed a motion for a bill of discovery asking that FBI records be produced, citing Jencks v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S. Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103, and alleging that the records would show that defendants had no intent to defraud. The district court denied both motions.
A plea of guilty admits all the averments of an information or an indictment. United States v. Swaggerty, 7 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 875, 880. See also Kercheval v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S. Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009; Friedman v. United States, 8 Cir., 1953, 200 F.2d 690. Defendants cannot, therefore now deny their admission of intent to defraud.
Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., provides:
Under this rule, the grant or denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Kercheval v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009; Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 305; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 39; United States v. Mignogna, 2 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 839. Here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coleman v. Burnett
...United States v. Smith, 407 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1969); United States v. Fragus, 422 F.2d 1244, 1245 (5th Cir.1970); Newalk v. United States, 254 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir.1958); Berg v. United States, 176 F.2d 122, 125 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 876, 70 S.Ct. 137, 94 L.Ed. 537 (1949); ......
-
Matter of S----, A-10494958.
..."It is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury," says United States v. Swaggerty, 218 F.2d 875 (C.A. 7, 1955). See also Newalk v. United States, 254 F.2d 869 (C.A. 5, 1958); Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 697 (C.A. 9, 1961), wherein the court held that by his plea of guilty the appellant ......
- Smith v. United States
-
Cuff v. United States, 19610.
...United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 256 F.2d 707; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479; Newalk v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F.2d 869. ...