MYRON GERALD HINDS, 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 judge is not required to inform a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentences prior to accepting a guilty plea.
Hinds pleaded guilty to breaking into a post office and escaping custody, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences. He appealed the denial of his mo…
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 Narcotics Addiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hinds is presently serving consecutive sentences in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, having been sentenced by the District Court of Arizona on his plea of guilty of breaking into a United States Post Office and a guilty plea to a separate indictment charging escape from custody.
This appeal is from the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. In his-motion, Hinds alleged that at the time of plea, the court failed to advise him of the consequences of his plea in that it “did not inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences.”
A judge is not required to inform a defendant prior to his plea, of the sentence he is to receive in the event he pleads guilty. It would be improper to do so. Here the court advised the defendant of the maximum sentences applicable to each charge. He was, therefore, effectively advised of the consequences of pleading guilty to each charge as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant claims he is a narcotic addict and for this reason was mentally incompetent at the time of arraignment and plea. We agree with the district court that there is no merit to this contention. See Sanchez v. United States, 401 F. 2d 771 (CA 5, 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Fruchtman v. Kenton, 531 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Rea Lyn Segal, 549 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Jacques Rene Henri Vermeulen, 436 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanchez v. United States, 401 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1968)