United States v. McDaniel, 28963 Summary Calendar.
| Citation | 425 F.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 28963 Summary Calendar.,28963 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lee McDANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Peter M. DeManio, Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Kendell W. Wherry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
The sole question before us is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion of defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty entered after an earlier plea of not guilty.1 The motion was filed some 40 days after defendant entered his guilty plea and two days before he was to be sentenced. The sole ground alleged was that he was "frightened and confused" when the guilty plea was made.
The defendant correctly states that the prerequisite of "manifest injustice" imposed by Rule 32(d) Fed.R.Cr. P. applies only to withdrawing a plea after sentence. But, as defendant acknowledges, withdrawal of a plea before sentencing is in the discretion of the trial court. Nothing that occurred in this case even remotely approached an abuse of discretion. Before accepting the plea the trial judge ascertained with the most meticulous and painstaking care that it was voluntarily entered and that defendant was fully aware of what he was doing. The District Judge complied fully with Rule 11, Fed.R.Cr.P. No contention is made that the plea was invalid, only that in the circumstances of its entry the court was guilty of abuse by not letting the valid plea be later withdrawn. We are unable to find any such abuse in this case.
Affirmed.
1 Pursuant to our local Rule 18 we decide this case on the briefs and record.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Dabdoub-Diaz, DABDOUB-DIA
...Rule 32(d) 2 contains its own explicit standard for trial court action and review: "to correct manifest injustice." United States v. McDaniel, 425 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1976); Leonard v. United States, 231 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1956); Carter v. United States, 224 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1955); United ......
-
State v. Carroll
...challenged decision represents an abuse of discretion. United States v. Baldez, 450 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir. 1971) and United States v. McDaniel, 425 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1970). The defendant's exception is overruled, and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further ...
-
U.S. v. Lake, 82-5837
...F.2d 96, 99 (5th Cir.1979). The cases assume without discussion that denial of the motion is appealable. Dabdoub-Diaz; U.S. v. McDaniel, 425 F.2d 813 (5th Cir.1970). The standards for our review of the district court's action have been said to be the same as for the district court, the "man......
-
United States v. McCoy, 72-3097 Summary Calendar.
...imposition of sentence, Kirshberger v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 782, or after imposition of sentence, United States v. McDaniel, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F. 2d 813. The decision to grant such a motion is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Rimanich v. United States, 5 Cir. ......