TERRY LADNER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
C. MURRAY HENDERSON, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1971-02-09
No. 30765
438 F.2d 638 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 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 court held that a trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea, such as loss of good time or parole eligibility for a different conviction.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pleaded guilty to escape and received a consecutive sentence. He later sought habeas corpus, claiming the judge failed to inform him that hi…

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:

Ladner appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

On March 29, 1968, the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of escaping from the Louisiana Correctional and Industrial School, where he was then serving a five-year sentence for attempted armed robbery. He received an additional two-year sentence to run consecutively to his five-year sentence.

The appellant now complains that the state trial judge did not inform him that he would lose his accumulated “good time” and consideration for parole as a result of his plea of guilty. He contends that the failure to inform him of this prior to acceptance of the plea vitiated the guilty plea.

We do not agree. This collateral effect of the plea was too remote to require the sentencing court to advise him with regard to it, since it concerned an entirely different conviction. Moreover, it is not essential to the validity of a guilty plea, that non-eligibility for parole be explained to the defendant. See Onick v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 425 F. 2d 1292; Sanchez v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 494.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw