Court Opinion

ID: 9450216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:38:38.751799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:11.928537
License: Public Domain

*103RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.P., is mandatory to the effect that the court shall not accept a plea of guilty “without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.” That provision is simply a restatement of the existing rule as stated in Kereheval v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009. “Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences.” 274 U.S. at 223, 47 S.Ct. at 583. Accord, Von Moltke v. Gillies, 1948, 332 U.S. 708, 719, 724, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309.
It appears without dispute that before the appellant’s plea of guilty was accepted he was told that he could be fined not more than $5,000.00 and imprisoned for not more than five years or both, the maximum punishment provided for the crime charged — transportation of a stolen vehicle — 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, but that he did not understand and was not informed that he could be deprived of his liberty for six years under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, as provided in 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 5010, 5017.
Upon his plea of guilty, the district court on July 20, 1959 sentenced the defendant “for a period of indefinite time under the provisions of section 5010(b), Title 18, U.S.C., Federal Youth Corrections Act.” With no allowance for good conduct or otherwise, he will this month have been confined for the full period of five years.
The argument that appellant’s confinement under the Youth Corrections Act is for the purpose of rehabilitation rather than punishment is no answer to the hard fact that he is being deprived of his liberty for a longer period than he was informed or understood at the time his plea of guilty was entered. See Jones v. Cunningham, 1963, 371 U.S. 236, 242, 243, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285; Pilk-ington v. United States, 4 Cir., 1963, 315 F.2d 204, 209; dissenting opinion in Cunningham v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 256 F.2d 467, 473, 474.
I would hold that appellant has been deprived of his liberty for the maximum time that he understood or was informed at the time his plea of guilty was accepted and that he is now entitled to be discharged.
I therefore respectfully dissent. Rehearing denied; RIVES, J., dissenting.