Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lister, Defendant-Appellant., 985 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1993)
Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (January 28, 1993)
Docket number: 92-50116,92-50122
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/37515992
Id. vLex: VLEX-37515992
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
Document options
Loading article preview...
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Nos. CR-89-1084-05, CR-91-0206-01, Rudi M. Brewster, District Judge, Presiding.
S.D.Cal.AFFIRMED IN NO. 92-50116, AND REVERSED IN NO. 92-50122.Before JAMES R. BROWNING, POOLE and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.MEMORANDUM** The district court correctly concluded the plea agreement in No. 92-50116 was void. The agreement was not ambiguous. It clearly bound Lister "not [to] commit any further crimes." It also provided "violation of any provision of this agreement [renders] it null and void." Lister's release on bond was conditioned upon his remaining within the Southern and Central Districts of California. Lister's travel to Mexico violated the conditions of his release, and is punishable by criminal contempt. 18 U.S.C. 3148. Lister therefore committed a crime, breached the plea agreement and rendered it void. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968).Since Lister admitted traveling to Mexico, there was no factual dispute regarding his violation of the conditions of his release on bond and no need for an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Packwood, 848 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.1988).IIIn No. 92-50122, the district judge's failure to inform the defendant that he would have the right against compelled self-incrimination if he went to trial violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3). That violation is harmless under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(h) if "the defendant was aware of the necessary information at the time he entered his plea." United States v. Graibe, 946 F.2d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.1991). In determining what Lister knew, we are restricted to a review of the record of the plea hearing. Id. Nothing in that record indicates that Lister knew of his right against compelled self-incrimination. Accordingly, the error was not harmless and Lister must be allowed to withdraw his plea.The judgment in No. 92-50116 is affirmed. The judgment in No. 92-50122 is reversed. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or for the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3 Other documents:
Helen Higgins v. Ga. Dept. of Corrections (11th Cir. 2008)
|
State v Brown Ohio 2002
|
Lyles v Beto 379 U.S 649 < I> per curiam < /I> 1965
|
united states of america, appellant, v. mary regina elizabeth gorsuch, defendant,... | Case of Audiencia Provincial Las Palmas Seccion 6 n 168/2007 of August 03 2007
| Karl Lagerfeld y Zaha Hadid, juntos | Auto of Audiencia Provincial - Madrid, Sección 3ª nº 457/2003, of November 28, 2003
| case of tribunal superior de justicia - oviedo, asturias - sala de lo social, of april 12, 2002
|
Decision n5/2004 del Comite de Embajadores ACP-CE, de 17 de diciembre de 2004, sobre el Reglamento financiero del Centro para el Desarrollo de la Empresa
| Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Barcelona, Cataluña - Sala de lo Social, of November 13, 2003
| chus bures presenta su obra marroqui en pontevedra
