RICHARD L. BUJESE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
The court held that the case must be remanded for a hearing to determine if the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to serve his sentence.
The defendant sought to reduce his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming he did not knowingly waive his right to serve his sentence. This issue wa…
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 Retroactive Application Of Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deem it necessary to remand this case to the District Court for purposes of holding a hearing. If the District Court finds that Bujese did not, of his own volition, knowingly and intelligently execute the election not to serve his sentence, realizing the effects of such waiver, then the application to reduce his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should be granted.
If the District Court finds to the contrary, it may, if it deems it appropriate under all the circumstances, proceed to determine whether it would be “just and practicable”, in its opinion, to give retroactive effect to Rule 38(a), Fed.R.Crim. Proc., 18 U.S.C.A., as amended July 1, 1966, to negate Bujese’s election, since the instant case was still pending on the effective date of the stated amendment.1
The foregoing issues were not presented to this Court at the time of Bujese’s former appeal at our No. 15034, 371 F. 2d 120 (1967). Concerning these, and any other relevant issues which may be presented, we express no opinion.
Accordingly, the judgment will be vacated and the case remanded with directions to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
. This amended rule “shall govern all criminal proceedings thereafter commenced and so far as just and practicable all proceedings then pending” (39 F.R.D. 271). See Leyvas v. United States, 371 F. 2d 714, 719 (9 Cir. 1967); McCoy v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 370 F. 2d 224 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. United States, 446 F.2d 847 (7th Cir. 1971)
-
Comulada v. Pickett, 455 F.2d 230 (7th Cir. 1972)
-
Atkinson v. United States, 418 F.2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leyvas v. United States, 371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Bujese, 371 F.2d 120 (3d Cir. 1967)
- McCOY v. United States, 370 F.2d 224 (D.C. Cir. 1966)