TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. William Samuel Hancock

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Samuel HANCOCK, A/K/A Harlan Duane Wixson, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Hancock, 607 F.2d 337 (10th Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 16, 1979
Docket
No. 77-2098
Judges
Doyle, McKay, Logan
Citations
607 F.2d 3371979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11181

Opinion — McKAY

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant sought to withdraw his plea of guilty at his sentencing hearing prior to imposition of sentence. This motion was authorized by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). The trial court summarily denied the request and sentenced appellant.

Although a criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty, a request to withdraw such a plea made before imposition of sentence should be considered carefully and with liberality.

Dorton v. United States, 447 F.2d 401, 411-12 (10th Cir. 1971);

Burnett v. United States, 404 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1968). The granting of permission to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the court, id., but that discretion is properly exercised only if the decision reached comports with the broad standards of liberality mandated by earlier cases.

See Dorton v. United States, 447 F.2d at 412;

Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).

Reviewing the record as a whole we believe that under our standards for the exercise of discretion the motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted. No hearing was held in which appellant had *338 an adequate opportunity to develop support for his reasons for wanting to change his plea. The court did not outline its reasons for denying the motion.

1

The government opposed the motion, but it did not claim, much less did it demonstrate, that it would be prejudiced in any way by appellant changing his plea.

2

Nor is this a case where the defendant’s motivation was found to be manipulation of the legal system.

See Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219, 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 1978).

3

REVERSED and remanded with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.

1

.

Cf. Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1978) (denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea affirmed; district judge had “issued a memorandum and order detailing the reasons for the denial”).

2

. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea, when made prior to sentencing, should be freely allowed in the interest of justice, unless the prosecution will be substantially prejudiced thereby. The liberality found here is a result of a desire to protect defendants’ rights to a jury trial. This right has found a favored place in our law.

8A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 32.07[2], at 109-11 (2d ed. 1978) (footnotes omitted).

3

. In Barker , defendant had received, in exchange for changing his initial plea to guilty, the government’s promises that it would not oppose his release on bond pending sentencing, would not seek to increase his bond, and would not use certain evidence in its possession at any release hearing. 579 F.2d at 1221 . The district court, in explaining its denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluded that defendant had been “attempting to manipulate the Government and the Court so that he could obtain that to which he was not entitled — six weeks of freedom on bond — without any adverse consequences.”

Id.

at 1222 . We found the district court’s conclusion warranted, and affirmed.

Id.

at 1226 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 11981: 31982: 11983: 21984: 11986: 11990: 21991: 11996: 12000: 12003: 119802026peak 1981 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Koskella300 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Utah 2003)
  2. United States v. John L. Vidakovich911 F.2d 435 (10th Cir. 1990)
  3. Osborn v. State672 P.2d 777 (Wyo. 1983)
  4. State v. Olish266 S.E.2d 134 (W. Va. 1980)
  5. Love v. State630 P.2d 21 (Alaska Ct. App. 1981)
  6. Schmidt v. State668 P.2d 656 (Wyo. 1983)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Koskella300 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Utah 2003)
  2. State v. Bollig2000 WI 6, 605 N.W.2d 199
  3. United States v. Gould78 F.3d 598 (10th Cir. 1996)
  4. United States v. Nahodil776 F. Supp. 991 (M.D. Penn. 1991)
  5. United States v. John L. Vidakovich911 F.2d 435 (10th Cir. 1990)
  6. State v. Handy391 S.E.2d 159 (N.C. 1990)

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
Wayne Ernest Barker v. United States of Am., United States of Am. v. Wayne Ernest Barker, 579 F.2d 1219 (10th Cir. 1978) 171
Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (1927) 980
Burnett v. United States, 404 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1968) 9

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