United States v. Arredondo, 71-1851 Summary Calendar.
| Citation | 447 F.2d 976 |
| Decision Date | 28 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1851 Summary Calendar.,71-1851 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo ARREDONDO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Oscar C. Gonzalez, Fred A. Semaan, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Anthony C. Aguilar, Mary L. Sinderson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Defendant below appeals from a sentence of ten years in the federal penitentiary, imposed after his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with failure to pay the transfer tax on a quantity of marihuana transported across the border from Mexico.
Appellant, along with Ramiro Yrlas, was originally indicted on a seven-count indictment charging them, in essence, with smuggling marihuana and heroin into the United States and failing to pay the tax thereon.
Prior to the indictment, and out of appellant's presence, Yrlas had been apprehended and found to be in possession of the marihuana. Entry had been made into appellant's room, and a white substance was found that appellant and customs agents believed to be heroin. At the examining trial on January 25, 1971, a customs agent testified that he ran a field test on the white substance and that, in his opinion, it was heroin.
On February 20, 1971, both defendants were arraigned on the tax count of the indictment and pled guilty. Appellant Arredondo, upon explanation by the court of the charge to which he was pleading, testified that he understood the nature of the charge, that he had committed the acts alleged, and that he understood the seriousness of the violation and the sentence provided by law. Moreover, he signed a waiver indicating that he understood that he had a complete defense to the charge under Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), and, after consultation with his attorney, still wished to plead guilty and waive his defense.
Several days after appellant's plea, appellant and his attorney were apprised for the first time by the Government that the white substance found in appellant's room was not heroin, but was, in fact, procaine.
Appellant made a motion before sentencing to withdraw his plea of guilty based on his mistake in believing the white substance in his possession to be heroin. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion.
Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty * * * may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. (Emphasis added.)
Appellant contends that before sentencing Rule 32(d) requires the district court to grant a motion to withdraw his plea. This contention ignores this Court's holding in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Roberts
...States v. Young, 424 F.2d 1276, 1279 (3d Cir. 1970).29 United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Arredondo, 447 F.2d 976, 977 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1026, 92 S.Ct. 683, 30 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972).30 See, e. g., United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d ......
-
U.S. v. Davila, 82-1090
...12 L.Ed.2d 178, where the defendant claimed his plea had been induced by threats of the prosecuting attorney; and United States v. Arrendondo, 447 F.2d 976 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1026, 92 S.Ct. 683, 30 L.Ed.2d 676, where the defendant claimed newly discovered evidence would ......
-
United States v. Presley, 71-3577.
...withdrawal of the plea, as we have held in a number of cases. United States v. Valdez, 5 Cir. 1971, 450 F.2d 1145 ; United States v. Arredondo, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 976 ; Kirshberger v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 782. We have adhered nonetheless to the general principle that Rul......
-
U.S. v. Buckles
...419 U.S. 1048, 95 S.Ct. 623, 42 L.Ed.2d 643 (1974), reh'g denied, 420 U.S. 913, 95 S.Ct. 837, 42 L.Ed.2d 844 (1975); United States v. Arredondo, 447 F.2d 976 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1026, 92 S.Ct. 683, 30 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972); DeLeon v. United States, 355 F.2d 286 (5th Cir.1966......