United States v. Woosley, 20476.
Decision Date | 19 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 20476.,20476. |
Citation | 440 F.2d 1280 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Michael WOOSLEY, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Kenneth S. Jacobs, Villa Park, Ill., for appellant.
Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., Peter T. Straub, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge. ROSS, Circuit Judge and STEPHENSON, Chief District Judge.
This is another appeal by a defendant from a judgment and conviction entered upon a plea of guilty upon the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate his plea of guilty which motion was filed on the date set for sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court for the reasons set out in United States v. Rawlins, 440 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. March 29, 1971) which has been decided today. In the instant case the factual situation differs and defendant urged other grounds for withdrawing his plea of guilty, so the essential facts will be set out with a brief comment thereon.
On June 19, 1970, the defendant appeared with his court appointed counsel, Richard D. Fitzgibbon,1 and entered a plea of not guilty. On June 26, 1970, a motion to dismiss on behalf of the defendant was submitted and denied. On July 2, 1970, defendant appeared before the Court and asked leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty.2 On July 10, 1970, defendant appeared for sentencing. The Court, however, placed the defendant in custody and deferred sentencing for another week.3 On July 17, 1970, at the time set for sentencing, other counsel, retained by the defendant's family, appeared and made an oral motion to withdraw the plea of guilty. The motion was denied. The Court then granted defendant additional time to file a written motion to withdraw the plea of guilty, and that motion came on for hearing on July 31, 1970.
In his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, defendant in substance, contended that his plea of guilty was made solely upon the advice and recommendation of his counsel, and, that had he fully understood the nature of the possible defenses available to him he would not have voluntarily entered the plea of guilty, and he did so without full understanding of the nature of the charge and of the consequences of the plea. Defendant's direct testimony at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and that of his wife, in general, supported these allegations. In addition, defendant testified that his attorney told him there was a possibility that he might be sent to do hospital work. The Court also questioned the defendant.4 After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Court found there was no reason to set aside the plea of guilty, denied the motion, and proceeded to sentence the defendant.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit error in denying defendant's request to withdraw his plea of guilty. In accepting the guilty plea the trial court complied with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record then made indicates the defendant's plea was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Rule 11 proceedings are not an exercise in futility. The plea of guilty is a solemn act not to be disregarded because of belated misgivings about the wisdom of the same.5 Since the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty was made prior to sentence, the trial court properly granted a hearing thereon for the purpose of determining whether there was substance to any of defendant's allegations. The record supports the trial court's finding that defendant had not been "misadvised by counsel." The Court, in denying defendant's motion to vacate his plea of guilty, did not abuse its discretion.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Proceedings on July 10th, 1970:
Counsel present:
Mr. Peter T. Straub, Assistant U. S. Attorney.
Mr. Richard D. Fitzgibbon, Jr., Attorney for defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Szarwak v. Warden, Connecticut Correctional Institution
...belated misgivings about the wisdom of the same." United States v. Benson, 469 F.2d 222, 223 (8th Cir.) quoting from United States v. Woosley, 440 F.2d 1280, 1281 (8th Cir.). In this case the Circuit Court developed, on the record, an exhaustive inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea of......
-
Woosley v. United States
...Woosley then appealed the conviction. We sustained this ruling of the district court and affirmed the conviction in United States v. Woosley, 8 Cir., 440 F.2d 1280, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864, 92 S.Ct. 53, 30 L.Ed.2d 108 (1971). Thereafter, Woosley petitioned the district court under Rule 3......
-
U.S.A v. Miell
...of guilty is a solemn act not to be disregarded because of belated misgivings about [its] wisdom.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Woosley, 440 F.2d 1280, 1281 (8th Cir.1971)). Considering the timing of Miell's motion, the court finds that this factor weighs against Miell due to the fact he fi......
-
U.S. v. Allen, CR 94-4030-MWB.
...(even though "fair and just reason" standard is a liberal one, plea is a solemn act not to be disregarded, quoting United States v. Woosley, 440 F.2d 1280, 1281 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864, 92 S.Ct. 53, 30 L.Ed.2d 108 (1971)). Consequently, when a defendant has entered a knowing ......