Court Opinion

ID: 9466041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:03:56.182432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:30.935878
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision of the court.
In United States v. Timmreck,—U.S.—, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979), it was held that collateral relief from a guilty plea is not available when all that is shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements of Rule 11, without a showing that the violation resulted in injury or harmful consequences to the pleader. The Court pointed out:
“Respondent does not argue that he was actually unaware of the special parole term or that, if he had been properly advised by the trial judge, he would not have pleaded guilty. His only claim is of a technical violation of the rule.”
—U.S. at—, 99 S.Ct. at 2087. To the same effect is United States v. Salas, 602 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1979).
*1248As I view the record it does sufficiently appear that Wacht did not know of his ineligibility for parole. What is still lacking, however, is a showing that had he known of his ineligibility for parole he would not have pleaded guilty. This is not implicit from the facts of this case. Here, contrary to the usual statutory ineligibility, under Arizona law probation was available to petitioner, and following his guilty plea he was first placed on probation. His sentence was imposed only after he had violated probation. This raises some doubt as to whether, faced with the possibility of probation (apparently a very real possibility), he would nevertheless have chosen not to plead guilty had he known that parole was not available.
I conclude that prejudice has not been sufficiently shown to satisfy the requirements of Timmreck, and that we are here faced with a mere technical violation of the rule.