Legal Opinion

United States v. Austin Hillman Marks

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 7, 1996No. 95-3376EMPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Having pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce in a murder-for-hire scheme, Austin Hillman Marks challenges the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Marks also claims for the first time on appeal that his trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance. We affirm.

Marks claims the district court did not adequately question him about the medications he was taking to ensure that he was mentally competent to enter a knowing and intelligent guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d). Marks’s contention is foreclosed by…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. United States v. William Terrell BurneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  4. Gregory Wade Thomas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
  5. United States v. Donald S. DalmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. John Bradford BondCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  2. United States v. David S. ForsytheCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  3. United States v. John Bradford BondCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API