TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Douglas Onick v. United States

Douglas ONICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

Onick v. United States, 425 F.2d 1292 (5th Cir. 1970)
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
May 6, 1970
Docket
No. 28848_1
Judges
Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson
Citations
425 F.2d 12921970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9390

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

We have concluded on the merits that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Accordingly, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this fact in writing.

See Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526 ; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804 ; 5 Cir.R. 18.

Douglas Onick pleaded guilty to charges of possessing and selling heroin and marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 4705 (a) and 4744(a). He was sentenced on November 16, 1961, to three terms of twenty years and one term of ten years, all to run concurrently.

In this motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , he contends that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and understandingly made because the trial court failed to inform him that his sentence would not be subject to parole. The district court denied relief on the authority of Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 266 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 899 , 88 S.Ct. 224 , 19 L.Ed.2d 221 .

*1293 In Trujillo , we held that Fed. R.Crim.P. Rule 11 does not require that the defendant be informed of his ineligibility for parole before a guilty plea can be accepted. We reaffirmed that holding in Sanchez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 494 . Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1971: 61973: 21980: 119712026peak 1971 · 6

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Trujillo v. United States, 377 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1967) 102
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969) 281
Sanchez v. United States, 417 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1969) 24

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