UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES R. COLLINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

9th Cir. | 1990-03-07
No. 87-3130
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
898 F.2d 103 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1990)

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

A motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 is unavailable to a defendant who has pleaded guilty, as no trial has occurred.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life without parole. He later sought a new trial based on newly discovered excul…

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:

[*104] PER CURIAM:

Appellant Collins was charged with second degree murder and initially pled not guilty. He later changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The sentence was ultimately affirmed on appeal.

Collins now appeals the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. He claims the government failed to provide him with exculpatory statements from witnesses and a psychological report. Without this information, Collins asserts, he was unable to evaluate properly the strength of the government’s case before pleading guilty.

Rule 33 states, “[t]he court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to that defendant if required in the interest of justice.” By its terms, Rule 33 applies only to cases in which a trial has occurred. When the defendant has pled guilty, as here, no trial has occurred and the Rule 33 remedy is unavailable. In sum, “the validity of a guilty plea cannot be questioned by way of a motion for new trial.” United States v. Lambert, 603 F. 2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979) (citation omitted); see Williams v. United States, 290 F. 2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam).

Collins’ remedy, if any, is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw