EARNEST NORMAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1970-08-04
No. 23998
Before CHAMBERS and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.
429 F.2d 1310 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The denial of a writ of coram nobis is affirmed because the rule in McCarthy v. United States is not retroactive.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought a writ of coram nobis, arguing his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to lack of advice on charges and penalties. The tria…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a denial of an application for a writ of coram nobis relies on McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. It appears from McCarthy that a full compliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is required and that there must be a definite record made showing the plea of guilty was entered knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily.

Here Mr. Norman was not advised of the nature of the charge or the possible maximum penalties. He entered a plea of guilty solely as requested. He now asks that this court make the rule in McCarthy v. United States retroactive.

Under the rule of Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 833, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16, it appears that the rule in McCarthy v. United States was not to be applied retroactively and therefore would not apply to the conviction of Norman. This is not a case involving the violation of constitutional rights but merely a strict construction of Rule 11. Since the principal case of the appellant is not applied retroactively, the denial of the application for writ of coram nobis is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw