LARSEN

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Alphonzo Edwards v. United States, 256 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
  …mining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.” . Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). See Futterman v. United States, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 202 F. 2d 185; Carter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F. 2d 563, vacated 350 U.S. 928, 76 S.Ct. 301, 100 L.Ed. 811. . See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, note 6 supra; Von Moltke v. Gillies, 1948, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309; Waley v. Johnston, 1942, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302; Smith v. O’Grady, 1940, 312 U.S. 329, 01…
• Eason v. Dickson, 390 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1968)
  …of the penalty for the conviction and that such action does not constitute a penalty. Sturm, supra. See also In re Larsen, 44 Cal.2d 642, 646-648, 283 P. 2d 1043, 1045-1046 (1955), appeal dismissed, sub nom. Larsen v. People of State of California, 350 U.S. 928, 76 S.Ct. 312, 100 L.Ed. 811 (1956). Finally, Eason asserts that he was denied equal protection [42 U.S.C. § 1981] because the Adult Authority did not comply with Cal.Pen.Code § 2924. In his complaint, however, Ea-son made no suggestion either that…
• Carter v. Carter, 264 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1959)
  …lea of guilty so that he can plead the statute of limitations against further prosecution, or in the alternative, reclaim some of the taxes and penalties he has been required to pay.” 224 F. 2d at page 564. Our decision was reversed per curiam 1956, 350 U.S. 928, 76 S.Ct. 301, 100 L.Ed. 811. . Separate suits were filed by husband and wife, but consolidated for trial and judgment. Only the suit by Carter, the husband, is involved here. . Paid by wife on income reported by calendar 1946 return .............…