United States v. Lucia, 26316
| Decision Date | 30 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26316,26317.,26316 |
| Citation | 423 F.2d 697 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph P. LUCIA, Defendant-Appellant (2 cases). |
Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., Marvin K. Collie, Harry M. Reasoner, Travis C. Broesche, Frank F. Smith, Jr., Vinson, Elkins, Searls & Connally, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant Joseph P. Lucia.
Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for the United States.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
I.
The Court en banc is unanimously of the opinion that the panel, 416 F.2d 920, correctly decided that Marchetti v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S. Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 and Grosso v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 906 should be applied retroactively. See Meadows v. United States, 9 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 795 (citing Lucia with approval); United States v. Miller, 4 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 1100. The Court therefore affirms the judgment of the panel.
The Court also finds that there is no necessary conflict between Lucia and United States v. Scardino, 5 Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 925.
II.
A majority of the Court concludes that because of the holding on the retroactive effect of Marchetti and Grosso there is no need to discuss waiver. Section I of the panel's decision is therefore withdrawn.
Judge Wisdom takes the position that the Court must dispose of the question of waiver before reaching the question of the retroactivity of Marchetti and Grosso. He adheres to the view the panel expressed: Ordinarily a plea of guilty waives defenses and privileges; there was no waiver in this case, for Lucia could not understandingly waive his privilege against self-incrimination in a prosecution for violation of the federal laws taxing illegal wagers, since at the time he pleaded guilty the Supreme Court had not decided Marchetti and Grosso.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bannister v. United States
...Compare United States v. Miller, 406 F.2d 1100 (4 Cir. 1969); United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5 Cir. 1969), rehearing en banc, 423 F.2d 697 (1970), cert. denied 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1607, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971), Meadows v. United States, 420 F.2d 795 (9 Cir. 1969) cert. denied, 402 U......
-
Lucia v. United States
...en banc adhered to the panel decision that Marchetti and Grosso should be applied retroactively to Lucia's motion. United States v. Lucia, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 697. The government's petition for writ of certiorari was denied. United States v. Lucia, 1971, 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1607, 29 L.......
-
Henderson v. Tollett
...of rights. United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden of Attica State Prison, supra; (cf. the position of Wisdom, J. in United States v. Lucia, 423 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. en banc 1970) cert. den. 402 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 1607, 29 L.Ed.2d 111 (1971) reaffirming his own belief in the principles announc......
-
U.S. v. Andrade
...based on intervening Supreme Court decision that may have rendered factual basis of plea insufficient); see also United States v. Lucia, 423 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.1970) (en banc) (Supreme Court decisions establishing absolute defense to charge applied retroactively to vacate plea on collateral ......
-
A change of heart or a change of law? Withdrawing a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e).
...v. Vallejo, 476 F.2d 667 (3d Cir. 1973) (a change relating to sentencing); United States v. Lucia, 416 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1969), aff'd, 423 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1970) (en banc) (a change relating to a defense to the underlying (42) See, e.g., Stanback v. United States, 113 F.3d 651, 654 (7th ......