BAERCHUS

v.

MYERS, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Armour Bailey v. United States, 312 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1963)
  …ourt’s information was such that it knew that Bailey fully understood the nature of the charges against him, and entered his plea voluntarily. In this respect, the case is similar to Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 294 F. 2d 579, 580, cert. denied 368 U.S. 991, 82 S.Ct. 607, 7 L.Ed.2d 527, where it was said: “Rule 11 does not require any ritualistic ceremonial. A sentencing court does not have to conduct a hearing and make a finding showing compliance with the rule before [*681] accepting any guilty plea…
• Stephens v. United States, 376 F.2d 23 (10th Cir. 1967)
  …im.P., and that his plea was consequently not acceptable as a matter of law. The United States concedes that the sentencing judge did not fully comply with the provisions of Rule 11. In Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 294 F. 2d 579, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 991, 82 S.Ct. 607, 7 L.Ed.2d 527, this court held that in cases where the requirements of Rule 11 were not met, appropriate inquiry into the fact of the voluntariness of a plea must be made. Such inquiry was here made and it was specifically found that…
• Barber v. United States, 427 F.2d 70 (10th Cir. 1970)
  …ge. The sentencing court made a thorough inquiry with pertinent questioning of the appellant. It appears therefrom that the appellant’s plea was made with knowledge and volition. See Nunley v. United States, 10 Cir., 294 F. 2d 579, 580, cert. denied 368 U.S. 991, 82 S.Ct. 607, 7 L.Ed.2d 527, a case in which a co-defendant of this appellant urged the same point as that made in this appeal. No evidentiary hearing on the instant motion was necessary because there were no allegations of facts outside the record…