TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William B. French v. United States

William B. FRENCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

French v. United States, 408 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 18, 1969
Docket
No. 26242
Judges
Bell, Morgan
Citations
408 F.2d 10271969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13213

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence of William B. French, appellant, on a plea of guilty to an Information brought alleging violation of Title 18, Section 641, of the United States Code. Sentence was imposed for a period of 18 months.

The record in the case is lucid as to the points urged by French on appeal. The appellant French was fully apprised of his rights at the arraignment, and with'his rights outlined chose to execute a waiver of counsel as well as a waiver of indictment. At a hearing in open court, French voluntarily plead guilty to the offense and again waived his right to be represented by an attorney at the sentencing.

*1028 On appeal, French now contends that his plea of guilty was not made voluntarily, with a full understanding of the nature of the charge, since he was not informed that there were lesser included offenses applicable to him. This allegation fails in that the record indicates that French had a clear understanding of the offense sufficient to satisfy the law. The defendant need not be instructed on all possible legal disadvantages and collateral consequences of his conviction before accepting his plea. United States v. Washington, 341 F.2d 277 (3 Cir., 1965) ; United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180 (3 Cir., 1963).

As to the additional questions presented, we find no meritorious support in the record. The decision of the District Court is affirmed in toto.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 21982: 119722026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Zambuto v. State413 So. 2d 461 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  2. James Morgan Tindall v. United States469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1972)
  3. United States v. Casanova's, Inc.350 F. Supp. 291 (E.D. Wis. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Zambuto v. State413 So. 2d 461 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  2. United States v. Casanova's, Inc.350 F. Supp. 291 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
  3. James Morgan Tindall v. United States469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180 (3d Cir. 1963) 109
United States v. Washington, 341 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1965) 62

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list