Willie Charles MacOn v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentEly, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent. Since the sentencing judge accepted the plea of guilty without personally communicating any advice whatsoever to the accused, there was, as the majority recognizes, manifest failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.P. Notwithstanding, the majority affirms upon its conclusion that Macon did not, in his petition, allege that he was unaware, before he entered his plea, of all the possible consequences which might follow that plea. This approach, so narrowly technical, is an avenue which I cannot take, especially since, as the majority also…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- George Richard Heiden, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Charles Blair v. The People of the State of California, Robert A. Heinze, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Eddie W. Pembrook v. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden, California State Prison, San Quentin, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.