UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES M. KAHN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 guilty plea is reversible error on direct appeal if the District Court fails to strictly comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States government. He appealed, arguing his plea was invalid due to the District Court's …
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.
PER CURIAM:
This is a direct appeal from a conviction following a plea of guilty to a charge-of conspiracy to defraud the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371. Appellant Kahn argues that his guilty plea was tainted by the District Court’s failure to comply literally with the requirements of Rule 11, F.R.Crim.P. Kahn points to several alleged deficiencies in the plea proceedings. We need not consider every one of these alleged errors, however, since even one deviation from the literal requirements of Rule 11 is reversible error on direct appeal. See e. g., United States v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1978, 584 F. 2d 115; United States v. Adams, 5 Cir., 1973, 566 F. 2d 962. But cf. Keel v. United States, 5 Cir. (en banc), 1978, 572 F. 2d 1135 (showing of prejudice required in collateral challenge of Rule 11 proceedings).
In this case, the record shows that the District Court did not personally inform Kahn of the nature of the charge against him and the maximum punishment allowed. Nor was Kahn fully advised of those rights that he waived by his guilty plea. As the government concedes, this constitutes a failure to comply with the terms of Rule 11(c)(1) and (3), with the result that reversal is required. United States v. Lincecum, 5 Cir., 1978, 568 F. 2d 1229; United States v. Hart, 5 Cir., 1978, 566 F. 2d 977.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Dayton, 604 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Adams, 566 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Garland H. Lincecum and R. V. Wilson, Jr., 568 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Hart, 566 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Keel v. United States, 572 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Henderson v. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 584 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Clark, 584 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1978)