Legal Opinion
Christopher Stoufflet v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided July 8, 2014No. 13-10874PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
This appeal requires us to decide whether a federal prisoner may collaterally attack the voluntariness of his guilty plea in a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, after he already presented that issue as an objection to his appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw in his direct appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We conclude that the prisoner is proeedurally barred from relitigating the voluntariness of his plea. We affirm the denial of the prisoner’s motion to vacate his sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
Christopher…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Hill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Efraim Diveroli v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2015
- United States v. TrentCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- Isaac Seabrooks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2022
- Alex Cori Tribue v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Darrell GreenCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.