RONALD MICHAEL COMBS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant is not entitled to know under which specific act he will be sentenced, only the maximum possible sentence.
Appellant pleaded guilty to violating the Dyer Act and received an indeterminate sentence under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. He argued his guilt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Understanding Of Consequences Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After appellant pled guilty to a charge of violating the Dyer Act, the district court, proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, gave him an indeterminate sentence that can entail a six year restraint on his liberty. The maximum sentence for the substantive offense with which he was charged is five years. (18 U.S.C. § 2312).
Appellant’s sole contention is that his guilty plea was made without the requisite “understanding of the * * * consequences * * *.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11; Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927). The record shows and appellant acknowledges that upon his arraignment he was informed by the court that he might be dealt with under the Youth Act or as an adult offender, and that he was further informed of the maximum sentences permissible in either event [see Freeman v. United States, 350 F. 2d 940 (9th Cir. (1965)]; but he argues that the court was obliged to advise him under which Act he would be sentenced.
His contention lacks merit. He was entitled to know the maximum possible sentence that the court could legally impose, but he was not entitled to a commitment from the court as to its probable disposition of him. The Rule 11 requirement was fully met when he was made “aware of the range of sentences to which the plea expose[d] him.” Pilkington v. United States, 315 F. 2d 204, 210 (4th Cir. 1963), cited with approval by this court in Freeman v. United States, supra, 350 F. 2d at 943.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Myers, 451 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Blair, 470 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Durant v. United States, 410 F.2d 689 (1st Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1927)
- Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204 (4th Cir. 1963)
- Freeman v. United States, 350 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1965)