TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Jose Melendrez-Salas

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MELENDREZ-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Melendrez-Salas, 466 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 22, 1972
Docket
No. 72-1787
Judges
Hufstedler, Wright, Lucas
Citations
466 F.2d 8611972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7446

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from a conviction for smuggling marijuana, appellant makes three assignments of error: (1) the evidence. was insufficient to sustain the conviction, (2) the court improperly denied a jury request during deliberation to have certain testimony read again, and (3) the court abused its discretion by refusing to accept a plea of guilty. We have considered all of the contentions, find that none has merit, and will discuss only the third.

Counsel had discussed appellant’s offer to plead guilty and tendered to the trial court a guilty plea to a lesser offense. This was refused. Defendant was unwilling to admit outright that he was guilty of knowingly carrying marijuana in his automobile but only that he had reason to suspect that he was. The prosecution had agreed not to oppose probation if the plea were accepted.

The acceptance of a guilty plea is discretionary.

1

Appellant relies on North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to support his contention that a trial judge must accept a knowing and intelligent guilty plea despite a protestation of innocence. But we observe that Alford specifically holds the contrary.

“Our holding does not mean that a trial judge must accept every constitutionally valid guilty plea merely because a defendant wishes so to plead. A criminal defendant does not have an absolute right under the Constitution to have his guilty plea accepted by the court. . . .” North Carolina v. Alford, supra at p. 38 n. 11, 91 S.Ct. at p. 168 .

See also United States v. Pineda-Espinoza, 455 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1972).

Affirmed.

1

. Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P. states:

“The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.

“The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.” [Emphasis added.]

How later courts describe this case

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

1979: 21981: 12010: 119792026peak 1979 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. James Barry O'Brien601 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1979)
  2. United States v. John M. Hecht638 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1981)
  3. Schoger v. State226 P.3d 1269 (Idaho 2010)
  4. Farley v. Glanton280 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 1979)

Most recent

  1. Schoger v. State226 P.3d 1269 (Idaho 2010)
  2. United States v. John M. Hecht638 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1981)
  3. United States v. James Barry O'Brien601 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1979)
  4. Farley v. Glanton280 N.W.2d 411 (Iowa 1979)

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
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) 8,722
United States v. Pineda-Espinoza, 455 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1972) 3

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