U.S. v. Price, 76-2165
| Decision Date | 13 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2165,76-2165 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Wiley PRICE, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James A. Johnston, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Michael P. Carnes, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Judith A. Shepherd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before DYER, CLARK and HILL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the denial by the district court of John Wiley Price's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty under Fed.R.Crim.P 32(d). Price was convicted on a plea of guilty to making a materially false statement to a federally insured bank for the purpose of influencing the bank to approve a home improvement loan in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. On appeal Price contends that his plea proceeding was held in violation of Rule 11 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. Price argues that the district court could not have been satisfied that there was a factual basis for his plea. See Rule 11(f). We agree.
On January 23, 1976, Price was arraigned and advised of his rights pursuant to Rule 11 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. At this hearing he was represented by retained counsel and entered a plea of guilty. After being directed by the court to establish a factual basis for the plea, the Assistant United States Attorney read the following prepared statement into the record:
Your Honor, the facts to support the plea in United States v. John Wiley Price, Criminal Number 3-76-4, are that on May the 1st of 1974, John Wiley Price, defendant, made a false statement to the Guaranty Bank in Dallas, Texas, a bank the deposits of which were then and there insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in that he presented a contract with a Roger S. Mullins to a loan officer of said bank for improvements to be done on a house owned by Price. Price presented this contract for the purpose of influencing the loan officer's decision to act favorably on Price's application for a home improvement loan. Price then knew that the contract was false and never entered into by Price with Roger S. Mullins to make home improvements on his house. Based on this false contract, the loan officer granted Price a loan for $1,850 which Price never repaid. The loan was ultimately written off as a total loss by the bank.
The court inquired of Price as to the accuracy of the statement. Price replied that the statement was not true. He then proceeded to inform the court that he believed at the time and still believed that the contract entered into with Mullins was in fact signed by Mullins. He explained to the court that such misrepresentations as may have been made by him were known to be such by the bank officer who approved the loan. In addition, he explained that all of the proceeds of the loan went to settle his indebtedness to the bank making the loan. On the basis of Price's rejection of the factual statement, the court refused to accept his plea and recessed the proceeding until February 13, 1976.
On February 13, the court resumed the proceedings and once again interrogated Price concerning the factual basis for the plea. Price made almost exactly the same statement as he made on January 23. Following this interrogation the court again refused to accept the guilty plea because it did "not think that a factual basis, as required by law, ha(d) been established to support (the) plea of guilty . . . ." The court entered a plea of not guilty and set a trial date.
On March 15, 1976, the case was called for trial. The court was informed once again that Price wished to plead guilty. The Assistant United States Attorney read the exact statement into the record as was read on January 23, 1976. Following that statement the court asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Puentes-Hurtado
...Boatright, 588 F.2d 471, 475–76 (5th Cir.1979) ; United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1226–27 (5th Cir.1977) ; United States v. Price, 538 F.2d 722, 723–24 (5th Cir.1976) ; United States v. Vera, 514 F.2d 102, 103–04 (5th Cir.1975). To make matters more confusing, our cases after Fairch......
-
Carreon v. U.S., 77-2143
...quoted were quoted in Davis from United States v. Gaskins, 158 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 300, 485 F.2d 1046, 1049 (1976).) Cf. United States v. Price, 538 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1976). Voluntariness This being a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it is not enough to show merely a failure to comp......
-
Winston v. United States, 77 C 1695
...protesting his innocence was insufficient for purposes of establishing a rule 11 factual basis for the plea. See also United States v. Price, 538 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1976). Moreover, unlike cases such as Jimenez v. United States, 487 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 916, 94 S......