Court Opinion

ID: 9456607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:57:56.209336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:02.664444
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Nash correctly takes exception to the statement in the opinion that “It has not been claimed, nor could it be, that there was any deficiency in compliance with Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P.” We gladly correct it. Nash did advance such claim on appeal and although the district court addressed Nash personally before accepting his plea of nolo contendere, and carefully explained the consequences of the plea, the district court omitted explanation of the nature of the charge. Under McCarthy v. United States, decided April 2, 1969, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418, such omission would require affording Nash an opportunity to plead anew. McCarthy, how*373ever, has been limited to prospective effect, and does not apply to Nash’s plea, accepted June 1, 1967. Halliday v. United States (1969), 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16. The petition for rehearing is denied.