NAGELBERG
v.
UNITED STATES
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 federal defendant pleaded guilty to narcotics charges but sought to withdraw that plea before sentencing, citing changed circumstances and his cooperation with the government; the district court denied the withdrawal motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that a district court has discretion to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea and vacated the judgment, remanding for reconsideration in light of the government's consent to the withdrawal and its undisclosed intent to pursue lesser charges.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
On April 11, 1962, petitioner pleaded not guilty to federal narcotics charges; thereafter, on July 18, 1962, he was permitted to withdraw this plea and plead guilty; in November 1962, when the case came on for sentencing, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea because of facts and circumstances which had changed since the time of the plea, including petitioner’s extensive cooperation with the Government. The Government acquiesced in this motion, but the district judge denied it, holding that he had no power to permit withdrawal of the plea on such grounds. The court sentenced petitioner to the minimum statutory term of imprisonment and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 323 F. 2d 936.
The Government now says that it consented to petitioner’s motion to withdraw his plea because it “planned to dismiss the pending indictment against petitioner and substitute lesser charges.” The Government admits that this purpose was not expressly stated and that “it may be that the court was misled.” In these circumstances, we believe that the court has discretion to permit withdrawal of the plea. See Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220, 224 (1927). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruce v. United States, 379 F.2d 113 (D.C. Cir. 1967)…for discussion of the appropriateness of this plea for a case with mitigating elements that do not rise to the level of a legal defense. . See Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927); Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964); Everett v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 336 F. 2d 979 (1964); Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270, 272 F. 2d 499 (1959). . The procedure for presenting such a point, if made, would presumabl…1 / 2
-
Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1964)….C. 171, 172, 133 F. 2d 408, 409: ‘* * * it goes without saying that a plea of guilty at that time [arraignment] can be and often is changed, on proper motion, as a matter of course.’ ” (Emphasis added by Poole court.) . Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964). Nagelberg’s request to withdraw his guilty plea was with Government acquiescence; he had cooperated with the prosecutor who “ ‘planned to dismiss the pending in\dietment against petitioner and substitute lesser…1 / 3
-
United States v. Stayton, 408 F.2d 559 (3d Cir. 1969)…Kercheval was decided before the adoption of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but the quoted standard has. continued as the guideline for judicial disposition of a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a plea of guilty: Nagelberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 266, 84 S.Ct. 1252, 12 L.Ed.2d 290 (1964) ; Gearhart v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 270, 272 F. 2d 499, 502 (1959) ; United States v. Nigro, 262 F. 2d 783, 787 (3d Cir. 1959) ; Everett v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 336 F. 2d 979, 985 (1964)…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1927)
- United States v. Gerson Nagelberg, 323 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1963)