Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Raymond Lee Taylor

583 F.2d 178

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-11-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The defendant contends that the trial judge failed to comply with F.R.Cr.P. *179 11(d) because he did not personally address defendant and determine that his guilty plea was “voluntary.” The judge asked defendant if his plea was made “of his own free will and accord.” The choice of different words having the same meaning is of no consequence. 1 The government’s argument that alleged failure to comply with Rule 11 can be only raised by § 2255 is without merit. See U. S. v. Coronado, 554 F.2d 166 (CA5), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 214, 54 L.Ed.2d 149 (1977). AFFIRMED. 1 .

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Raymond Lee Taylor. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR,583 F.2d 178(5th Cir. 1978)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RAYMOND LEE TAYLOR,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 78-5259.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 2, 1978.
Thomas L. Farris, Fort Worth, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Raymond Lee Taylor, pro se.

Kenneth J. Mighell, U.S. Atty., Gerhard E. Kleinschmidt, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The defendant contends that the trial judge failed to comply with F.R.Cr.P.Page 17911(d) because he did not personally address defendant and determine that his guilty plea was "voluntary." The judge asked defendant if his plea was made "of his own free will and accord." The choice of different words having the same meaning is of no consequence.1

[2] The government's argument that alleged failure to comply with Rule 11 can be only raised by § 2255 is without merit.See U.S.v. Coronado,554 F.2d 166(CA5),cert. denied,434 U.S. 870,98 S.Ct. 214,54 L.Ed.2d 149(1977).

[3] AFFIRMED.
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.;see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. While we do not base our decision on it, the judge asked defense counsel if the plea was voluntary, and he responded that it was. By other questions addressed to defendant and answered by him, the judge established that defendant had been neither threatened, coerced pressured, or extended promises, and that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and for no other reason. ↩