TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Fred Hill

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred HILL, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1977)
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
December 21, 1977
Docket
No. 77-5276
Judges
Ainsworth, Gee, Morgan, Per Curiam
Citations
564 F.2d 11791977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

In May, 1976, the appellant was indicted for conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 .

In June, 1976, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, directing that the appellant be brought from prison in California to Georgia for arraignment. He was brought to Georgia and pled not guilty on June 28, 1976.

On November 23, 1976, the appellant moved to dismiss the indictment, on grounds that his trial had not commenced within 120 days of June 28, contrary to the mandate of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.App. § 2. The motion was denied on the grounds that the above writ was not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Following the ruling, the appellant changed his plea to guilty. The lower court approved an agreement to permit the present appeal over the applicability of the Act to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

The issue raised is an unsettled one, see United States v. Mauro, 2 Cir. 1976, 544 F.2d 588 , cert. granted, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 53 , 54 L.Ed.2d 71 ;

United States v. Scallion, 5 Cir. 1977, 548 F.2d 1168 , petition for cert. pending, No. 76-6659. However, a threshold issue is dispositive of this case.

We disapprove the practice of accepting a guilty or nolo contendere plea coupled with a court-approved agreement that a defendant may nevertheless appeal on non jurisdictional grounds.

United States v. Sepe, 5 Cir. 1973, 486 F.2d 1044 (en banc). While a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that the indictment failed to state an offense, or that the charge is unconstitutional, or that the indictment showed on its face that it was barred by the statute of limitations, Sepe , at 1045, none of these grounds for appeal are available in the instant case.

As this Court suggested in United States v. Mizell, 5 Cir. 1973, 488 F.2d 97 , a guilty plea induced by a court-approved promise that could not be fulfilled cannot be viewed as voluntary. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971);

Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1960).

Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated. The appellant may withdraw his guilty plea which had been conditioned on the agreement disapproved above, and may plead anew.

VACATED and REMANDED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1978: 21980: 11981: 11982: 11983: 11985: 31998: 12004: 119782026peak 1985 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Thomas Swann574 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1978)
  2. Ex Parte Evans690 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)
  3. State v. Madera503 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1985)
  4. Wooten v. State612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)
  5. United States v. Fred Hill622 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1980)
  6. Taylor v. Singletary148 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)

Most recent

  1. State v. Norris2004 UT App 267, 97 P.3d 732
  2. Taylor v. Singletary148 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)
  3. State v. Madera503 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1985)
  4. Ex Parte Pruitt689 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)
  5. Ex Parte Evans690 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)
  6. Zappas v. State650 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App. 1983)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 4,495
MacHibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) 1,439
United States v. Sepe, 486 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1973) 45
United States v. Scallion, 548 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) 67
United States v. Mauro, 544 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1976) 62
United States v. Mizell, 488 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1973) 19

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