TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James Edward Jones v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden

James Edward JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Jones v. Blackwell, 434 F.2d 253 (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
November 23, 1970
Docket
No. 30534_1
Judges
Ainsworth, Bell, Godbold, Per Curiam
Citations
434 F.2d 2531970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6284

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us from the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate and set aside sentences entered on pleas of guilty. We affirm.

1

Appellant contends that his privately retained counsel misled him into thinking that he was going to get a harsh sentence if he did not plead guilty. Thus, it is urged, his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily. We find no merit in these assertions.

Appellant was charged in two indictments with nineteen counts involving receiving, possessing and converting articles stolen from the United States mail, namely, various treasury checks and postal money orders. After the government had concluded its case in the trial on one of the indictments, appellant’s attorney advised him that he felt that since they had no defense, he could get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty. Appellant changed his plea to one count of that indictment. Approximately ten days later he changed his plea to one count of the second indictment. The remaining seventeen counts were dismissed by the government.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found with ample support in the record that petitioner made a knowing and voluntary change of his plea in each instance. Rule 11, F.R.Crim. P., was fully complied with as is shown by the transcript of the proceedings.

*254 The district court further found that appellant was adequately represented by privately retained counsel. This finding is in no sense erroneous. Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 1136 .

The judgment of the district court is due to be and it is affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir., 1969, 412 F.2d 981 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969) 164
Williams v. Wainwright, 415 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1969) 2

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