Legal Opinion

United States v. Parra-Ibanez

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided December 12, 1991No. 90-1768PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Per curiam

On June 19, 1991, we issued an opinion holding, inter alia, that the district court should have conducted a further inquiry *22pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 as to the effects of certain medication on the defendant’s ability to offer a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. United States v. Parra-Ibanez, 936 F.2d 588 (1st Cir.1991). At that time, we remanded to the district court for the taking of evidence to enable us to ascertain whether the error in truncating the Rule 11 inquiry was harmless. See id. at 596-98. In the interim, we retained appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 598.

The district court…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Francisco J. Parra-IbanezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. United States v. Gary P. Neal, United States v. William F. Kenney, Jr., United States v. Charles J. Flynn, A/K/A ChuckyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
  2. United States v. Jesus M. Quinones, A/K/A Jesus M. Quinones-RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
  3. United States v. Lucena-RiveraCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  4. (HC) Aranzubia v. MerlakDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
  5. (HC) Castro-Gutierrez v. ShockleyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022

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

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

Powered by the Exa API