United States v. Romano, 69 Cr. 482.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Citation314 F. Supp. 407
Docket NumberNo. 69 Cr. 482.,69 Cr. 482.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Raymond ROMANO, a/k/a Chino, Defendant.
Decision Date11 May 1970

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, for plaintiff; Charles B. Updike, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.

George P. Kosefas, New York City, for defendant.


TENNEY, District Judge.

Defendant moves pursuant to Fed.R. Crim.P. 32(d) to withdraw his plea of guilty heretofore accepted by this Court on November 19, 1969. After carefully reviewing the transcript of the proceedings conducted on November 19, 1969, I am convinced that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment. The Court's inquiry of the defendant was, I believe, in accordance with the justifiably cautious standards set forth in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1968). The defendant convinced the Court that he believed he was wrong and wished, after consulting counsel with whom he expressed satisfaction, to plead guilty to Count One of the indictment. The transcript makes it abundantly clear that the defendant understood the nature of the charge, the consequences of his plea, and that there existed an adequate factual basis for accepting his plea. By placing defendant's state of mind on the record through personal inquiry by the Court, I have, I believe, abided by the Supreme Court's admonition against resorting to "`assumptions' not based upon recorded responses to * * * my inquiries." McCarthy v. United States, supra at 467, 89 S.Ct. at 1171.

It is well established that a motion under Rule 32(d) as distinguished from a proceeding under Section 2255 of Title 28, United States Code, is addressed to the District Court's discretion and is not a matter of right. United States v. Napolitano, 212 F.Supp. 743, 745 (S.D.N.Y.1963).

When, as here, in response to questions propounded by the Court, a defendant satisfies the Court that: (1) he was aware that what he was doing was wrong when he committed the crime charged; (2) that he was mentally competent at the time the crime was committed and when the plea was taken; and (3) that the plea was voluntarily made after discussion with counsel of defendant's choosing whom he was satisfied with, had confidence in, and whom he felt adequately protected his interests, it is frivolous for a defendant to thereafter move to withdraw his guilty plea, based upon an unsupported allegation that he was entrapped, and an inferential assertion that his previous attorney was incompetent. See United States v. Komitor, 392 F.2d 520 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 827, 89 S.Ct. 91, 21 L.Ed.2d 98 (1968); Vasquez v. United States, 279 F.2d 34, 36 (9th Cir. 1960); United States v. Napolitano, supra, 212 F.Supp. at 745.

Here, as in Napolitano, supra, 212 F. Supp. at 746, "the plea was accepted only after his defendant's answers left no doubt that he understood the seriousness of the plea and its consequences."

Defendant's solemn declarations made in open court in the presence of his lawyer will not be disregarded merely because he now self-servingly asserts that the defense of entrapment, previously discouraged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Legree, L-88-001
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 2 d5 Dezembro d5 1988
    ...See, also, State v. Milanovich (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 71 O.O.2d 26, 325 N.E.2d 540; United States v. Romano (S.D.N.Y.1970), 314 F.Supp. 407. In the case sub judice, appellant alleges both that the plea bargain was broken and that through the misrepresentation to him that he was eligible ......
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 13 d1 Julho d1 1970
    ......Civ. A. No. 81-69-A. United" States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. July 13, 1970.\xC2"......
  • State v. Neil George, 99-LW-4881
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 12 d5 Novembro d5 1999
    ...of withdrawal. R.C. 2953.21(E). See, also, State v. Milanovich (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 46,; United States v. Romano (S.D.N.Y.1970), 314 F.Supp. 407." Based on our review of the transcript, we conclude that the record contradicts appellant's assertion that he was guaranteed a specific sentence......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT