Roeth v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 9372.,9372. |
| Citation | 382 F.2d 96 |
| Parties | Ralph Charles ROETH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jay M. Vogelson, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
John W. Raley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., with him on brief) for appellee.
Before JONES*, SETH and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted by a grand jury in Oklahoma for escaping from custody while serving an eight year sentence imposed by a Texas Federal Court. A motion to dismiss the indictment was filed by a court-appointed attorney in the Western District of Oklahoma. The motion was filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim. P. 48(b) and alleged that the indictment was procured to punish appellant for charging federal officers with unreasonable censorship of mail between client and attorney during a habeas corpus proceeding in the Texas District Court. The trial court denied the motion.
Appellant first entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment but some time later came before the court, with his court-appointed attorney, to request the court to permit him to withdraw the not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty.
The court-appointed attorney, with whom appellant was well satisfied according to the transcript, proposed to the court that the appellant unreservedly enter a plea of guilty, thereby acknowledging the truth of the indictment; however, appellant's counsel submitted to the court that the plea of guilty would not waive appellant's right, if he had one, to appeal from the order overruling the motion to dismiss. The court stated: "It is my opinion at this time * * * that if the defendant enters a plea of guilty it probably would waive any antecedent defects and I doubt seriously that he could appeal." The prosecuting officer confirmed the judge's conclusion. Without citing authority, the court-appointed attorney indicated that counsel who represented the appellant before the Texas Court had advised that such a procedure existed. The court again questioned the validity of such procedure and the court-appointed counsel indicated that if he could preserve all of appellant's rights without there being anything equivocable about the plea, he would have done everything he could do. Appellant was present during all of this colloquy.
The court proceeded under Rule 111 to determine that the plea was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea and to further determine that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court's interrogation of the appellant indicates that the questions conform to the commandments contained in Rule 11. The appellant appropriately answered, indicating to the court that if he entered a plea of guilty, it would be voluntarily and understandingly made. Roeth indicated that no threats had been made, no coercion or pressure used and that he relied upon no promises. The court concluded it would accept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. DePoli
...not to favor conditional guilty pleas. See United States v. Nooner, 565 F.2d 633, 634 (10th Cir. 1977) (dictum ); Roeth v. United States, 382 F.2d 96, 98 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 165 (1968).The Seventh Circuit has expressed disapproval of cond......
-
United States v. Mizell, 72-1397.
...574; McGrath v. United States, 7 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 466. 11 See United States v. Soltow, 10 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 59; Roeth v. United States, 10 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 96, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165; Zebelman v. United States, 10 Cir., 1964, 339 F.2d 12 See Wa......
-
United States v. DeCosta, 7585.
...denied, 382 U.S. 843, 86 S.Ct. 89, 15 L.Ed.2d 84 (1965). Accord, Fowler v. United States, 391 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1968); Roeth v. United States, 382 F.2d 96 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165 (1967). In response, defendant argues that the Doyle dictum con......
-
U.S. v. Nooner, 76-1468
...to suppress. The record before us does not indicate that there was any such understanding. And there is language in Roeth v. United States, 382 F.2d 96 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S.Ct. 1267, 20 L.Ed.2d 165 (1968), which indicates that this Court would look with disfav......