James Morgan Tindall v. United States

James Morgan TINDALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

Tindall v. United States, 469 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1972)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: October 31, 1972
Docket: No. 72-2587
Judges: Bell, Dyer, Clark
Citations: 469 F.2d 921972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6936

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied Tindall’s motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 . We affirm.

While serving a sentence in the Florida state penitentiary upon a state conviction, Tindall was convicted in federal court on his plea of guilty of two counts of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and one count of escape from federal custody. He was sentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment.

In his motion to vacate filed below Tindall contended that his guilty plea was made without knowledge of the consequence of the plea. He alleged that he was not advised by the trial court that his federal sentence would not commence on the date imposed but would follow his state sentence. He further alleged that his court appointed counsel had led him to believe that he would immediately begin service of his federal sentence.

Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P., requires the trial judge, before accepting a guilty plea, to advise the defendant of the maximum sentence possible. However, there is “no requirement to advise a defendant of every ‘but for’ consequence which follows from a plea of guilty.” Trujillo v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 377 F.2d 266 , cert. denied 389 U.S. 899 , 88 S.Ct. 224 , 19 L.Ed.2d 221 (ineligibility for parole); Ladner v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 638 (loss of good time); United States v. Offen, 5 Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 1079 (loss of rights of citizenship);

see also Taylor v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 452 F.2d 646 ; French v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 408 F.2d 1027 . In this case the trial court clearly advised *93 Tindall of the maximum sentences possible and carefully questioned him to determine that his pleas were completely voluntary. The district court fulfilled the requirement of Rule 11.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Joseph F. Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution475 F.2d 1364 (4th Cir. 1973)
United States v. Hernandez234 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2000)
United States v. Rea Lyn Segal549 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977)
Edwards v. State393 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
State v. Chung510 A.2d 72 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)
Commonwealth v. Englert457 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)

Most recent

United States v. Hansen197 F. App'x 355 (5th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Hernandez234 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2000)
State v. Chung510 A.2d 72 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)
Commonwealth v. Englert457 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)
Zambuto v. State413 So. 2d 461 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Polk v. State405 So. 2d 758 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

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 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Trujillo v. United States, 377 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1967)	102
	French v. United States, 408 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1969)	3
	Ladner v. C. Murray Henderson,, La. State Penitentiary, No. 30765 Summary Calendar, 438 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1971)	3
	United States v. Offen, 439 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1971)	2
	Taylor v. United States, 452 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1971)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list