Legal Opinion

United States v. Bachynsky

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided June 25, 1991No. 89-2742PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Today we consider whether there may be circumstances under which the harmless error provision of Rule 11(h), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, obviates the need to vacate a plea of guilty or nolo contendere even though, during the plea colloquy specified in Rule 11(c)(1) for determining the defendant’s understanding of the maximum possible penalty provided by law, the district court fails totally to mention or explain the effect of any supervised release term to which the defendant is exposed. For the reasons set forth below, we respond affirmatively, concluding that a district court’s…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. United States v. MechanikSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. United States v. Winston Eugene DaytonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
  5. Illinois v. MahaffeySupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  2. United States v. Rodriguez-RiosCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
  3. United States v. BondCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
  4. U.S. v. HekimainCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
  5. U.S. v. MartirosianCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992

3 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