UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTONIO MONACO, APPELLANT

3d Cir. | 1972-02-29
No. 71-2063
456 F.2d 254 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1972)

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 the trial court complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when accepting the appellant's guilty plea.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pleaded guilty to making a false statement in a naturalization proceeding. He appealed, arguing the trial court did not properly accept his …

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 is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for making a false statement as to a material fact in a proceeding relating to naturalization in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1015. Appellant, Monaco, originally entered a plea of not guilty to the charge, but on June 21, 1971, he retracted this plea and entered a plea of guilty.

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court, in accepting appellant’s plea of guilty, complied with Rule 11,1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as interpreted in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and Woodward v. United States, 426 F. 2d 959 (3d Cir. 1970).

We have examined the record pertaining to the colloquy between appellant and the court and reviewed all of the circumstances brought to our attention by appellant. There is nothing to indicate that appellant’s plea was other than factually supported. The trial court extensively examined the appellant personally. The facts surrounding the crime were developed clearly and it was readily apparent that there was substantial evidence which showed that appellant had in fact committed the crime as charged. We find no error committed by the district court. The plea of guilty was entered and made by the appellant voluntarily and intelligently with an understanding of the nature of the charge, and the consequences of the plea.

The judgment will be affirmed.

. Rule 11 provides inter alia that: “A defendant may idead . . . guilty. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea . . . without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. . . . The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw