Court Opinion

ID: 9456526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:55:34.33526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:00.677483
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the record of Cody’s three appearances before the District Court prior to acceptance of his guilty plea reflects that an adequate basis exists for a determination by the court that Cody understood the nature and consequences of his guilty plea, and that a factual basis for the *291acceptance of the plea is established. The elements of the crime charged are simple and easily understood. Defendant was represented by competent counsel. There has been substantial compliance with Rule 11.1
Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), a defendant has no right to withdraw his plea of guilty after sentence unless he can show a manifest injustice would result if such were not permitted. Sher-burne v. United States, 8 Cir., 433 F.2d 1350, 1353; Meyer v. United States, 8 Cir., 424 F.2d 1181, 1190.
Cody has not asserted that he is not guilty of the crime charged nor has he shown any substantial basis for a determination that the acceptance of his plea was not voluntary nor that the acceptance resulted in manifest injustice.
The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Cody to withdraw his guilty plea after sentence.
I would affirm.

. I do not disagree with the majority view that expanded questioning under Rule 11 would tend to discourage or at least enable more expeditious disposition of post-conviction attacks upon the validity of a guilty plea.