Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Myron Gerald Hinds v. United States

Myron Gerald Hinds v. United States, 429 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-09-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • trial court did not err by not informing defendant of probable sentence before accepting plea bargain; would have been improper for court to do so

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Myron Gerald Hinds v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
HINDS v. UNITED STATES,429 F.2d 1322(9th Cir. 1970)
Myron Gerald HINDS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 24662.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 17, 1970.
Rehearing Denied September 10, 1970.
Page 1323
Myron Gerald Hinds, in pro. per.

Richard K. Burke, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Hinds is presently serving consecutive sentences in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, having been sentenced by the District Court of Arizona on his plea of guilty of breaking into a United States Post Office and a guilty plea to a separate indictment charging escape from custody.

This appeal is from the district court's denial of appellant's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. In his motion, Hinds alleged that at the time of plea, the court failed to advise him of the consequences of his plea in that it "did not inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences."

A judge is not required to inform a defendant prior to his plea, of the sentence he is to receive in the event he pleads guilty. It would be improper to do so. Here the court advised the defendant of the maximum sentences applicable to each charge. He was, therefore, effectively advised of the consequences of pleading guilty to each charge as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The appellant claims he is a narcotic addict and for this reason was mentally incompetent at the time of arraignment and plea. We agree with the district court that there is no merit to this contention. See Sanchez v. United States,401 F.2d 771(CA 5, 1968).

Affirmed.
  1. Honorable William M. Byrne, United States Senior District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩