TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. William James Becker, No. 30734 Summary Calendar

United States v. William James Becker, No. 30734 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

United States v. Becker, 437 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1971)
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
January 25, 1971
Docket
No. 1086
Citations
437 F.2d 1086

Opinion

437 F.2d 1086

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William James BECKER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 30734 Summary Calendar.* *Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 25, 1971.

James E. Yates, Savannah, Ga. (Court-appointed) for defendant-appellant.

R. Jackson B. Smith, Jr., U.S. Atty., Richard C. Chadwick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

On this appeal, appellant complains of incompetency of his retained counsel, denial of his request to change his plea of guilty to that of not guilty, and failure of the district court to permit him his right of allocution before imposition of sentence.

2

A review of the record does not indicate that appellant's retained counsel was ineffective. See United States v. Rubin, 5 Cir., 1970, 433 F.2d 442 (decided Oct. 30, 1970); Odom v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 853, 859 . Neither was there an abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the appellant the right to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 ; Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 296 .

3

As to the appellant's assertion that he was not permitted to speak in mitigation of his sentence before imposition thereof, we conclude that the district court committed error. The 1966 amendment to Rule 32(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the court, before imposing sentence, must afford an opportunity to the defendant personally to speak in his own behalf. The amendment also provides an opportunity for counsel to speak on behalf of the defendant. See Green v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 301 , 81 S.Ct. 653 , 5 L.Ed.2d 670 . The record in the case at hand shows that sentence was imposed immediately after disallowing appellant's motion to change his plea and without permitting defendant or his attorney to speak in mitigation of the sentence.

4

The sentence imposed by the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) 5,834
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961) 593
Isbell Enters. v. Citizens Cas. Co, 431 F.2d 409 (3d Cir. 1970) 3,975
Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1967) 163
Smith v. United States, 378 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1967) 3
United States v. Becker, 437 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1971) 1

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