U.S. v. Johnson, 76-1581
| Decision Date | 11 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1581,76-1581 |
| Citation | 546 F.2d 1225 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Alvin JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Francis Alvin Johnson, pro se.
John E. Clark, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Frank B. Walker, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Francis Alvin Johnson was charged in four separate indictments with several counts of violating various federal firearms control statutes. Pursuant to a plea bargain between the Government, defendant and his attorney, all indictments were dismissed with prejudice, defendant waived his right to further grand jury indictment, and he entered a plea of guilty to a one-count bill of information charging him with misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4. Specifically, the information charges that Johnson "concealed and did not as soon as possible make known" to authorities a violation of the Neutrality Act, 22 U.S.C.A. § 1934. The violation refers to the attempted export of arms and ammunitions by two others indicted with defendant.
Upon receipt of the guilty plea, the district judge requested the U.S. Attorney to state the factual basis thereof, as required by Rule 11(f), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. The proffered factual basis contains only the following discussion of appellant Johnson:
. . . Agent Ortorica would testify that he then had a conversation with Francis Alvin Johnson concerning these transactions which indicated that Mr. Johnson was aware of the conversations that had taken place between Agent Ortorica, posing in an undercover capacity and Julia Minas and James Leroy Humphrie, but that Francis Alvin Johnson to this date has not come forward and told any authority of these conversations or these transactions between Julia Minas and James Leroy Humphrie.
The Rule 11(f) factual basis for a guilty plea must be precise enough and sufficiently specific to show that the accused's conduct on the occasion involved was within the ambit of that defined as criminal. Before a guilty plea can be validly accepted, the district court must insure that the conduct admitted by the accused constitutes the offense charged in the information. This factual basis must appear on the record. The purpose behind such a requirement is to protect a defendant who may plead voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the definition of the crime charged. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); United States v. Vera, 514 F.2d 102, 104 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Davis, 493 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 1974); Reed v. United States, 471 F.2d 721, 722 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Frontero, 452 F.2d 406, 416 (5th Cir. 1971).
The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took " affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals." United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bennett
...not actually fall within the charge." See also United States v. Oberski, 734 F.2d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1226-27 (5th Cir.1977); Carreon v. United States, 578 F.2d 176 (7th Cir.1978). Rule 11(e)(6)(D)(ii) expressly recognizes that a defendant's s......
-
United States v. Alvarado-Casas
...within the definition of the crime charged.” United States v. Spruill, 292 F.3d 207, 215 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1226–27 (5th Cir.1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing guilty pleas for compliance with Rule 11(b)(3), the court evalua......
-
U.S. v. Caraballo-Rodriguez
...he pled guilty to activities which do not constitute the crime of misprision and so his plea must be vacated. See United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 (5th Cir.1977) (reversing conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 4 by guilty plea on preserved claim where factual basis for plea showed mere......
-
Ingalls Shipbuilding Div., Litton Systems, Inc. v. White
... ... , even if we treat the ALJ's order approving settlement like a consent decree, as appellant bids us, we find ample support in law and logic for holding that it is reviewable ... III. DIRECTOR'S ... ...
-
Corporate criminal liability.
...an affirmative step to conceal--is a required element; mere failure to make known does not suffice." (citing United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 (5th Cir. (56.) See Neal v. United States, 102 F.2d 643, 650 (8th Cir. 1939) (finding defendant who altered bank books but returned them......
-
Corporate criminal liability.
...an affirmative step to conceal--is a required element; mere failure to make known does not suffice." (citing United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 (5th Cir. (55.) See Neal v. United States, 102 F.2d 643,650 (8th Cir. 1939) (finding defendant who altered bank books but returned them ......