TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vernell Christopher v. United States

Vernell CHRISTOPHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

Christopher v. United States, 541 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1976)
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
October 29, 1976
Docket
No. 76-2011
Judges
Coleman, Goldberg, Gee
Citations
541 F.2d 507

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

On August 31, 1962, the appellant, Vernell Christopher, plead guilty to all counts of a four-count Bill of Information. Following the denial of his § 2255 motion, Christopher appealed to this Court contending that the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to inquire whether there was a factual basis to support the plea. Finding no merit in this contention, we affirm.

In 1966, Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, was amended to provide that the court could not enter judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it was satisfied that there was a factual basis for the plea. Prior to 1966, there was no such requirement although some federal judges followed this practice. When this plea was accepted in 1962, the district judge was not required to find a sufficient factual basis to support the plea.

Despite the fact that no factual basis was necessary to accept the plea, the district judge had obtained sufficient information from the presentence report which would justify the plea’s acceptance. The advisory notes at the end of Rule 11 state that the trial judge may determine if a factual basis exists for the plea by inquiry of the defendant, or the attorney for the government, or by examining the presentence report, or otherwise. From the record of this case, it can be seen that the district judge acted properly according to the “law of the time when the plea was accepted.

See McCarthy v. U. S., 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969);

Halliday v. U. S., 394 U.S. 831 , 89 S.Ct. 1498 , 23 L.Ed.2d 16 ; also see, Burton v. U. S., 9 Cir. 1973, 483 F.2d 1182 .

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 11978: 11993: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gerald Isaac Sassoon v. United States561 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1977)
  2. Johnson v. Mullen390 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1978)
  3. United States v. Sweet38 M.J. 583 (1993)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Sweet38 M.J. 583 (1993)
  2. Johnson v. Mullen390 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1978)
  3. Gerald Isaac Sassoon v. United States561 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1977)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) 2,642
Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831 (1969) 451
Burton v. United States, 483 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1973) 17

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