Leanel Williams v. United States
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Christy (District Court, D. New Mexico 2012)
- United States v. Hester (5th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Herman C. Lambert (10th Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Andrew Jackson Robertson (5th Cir. 1978)
- Lawrence D. Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, United States Magistrate for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Christopher Montgomery (5th Cir. 2014)
- United States v. Baker (District Court, D. North Dakota 2011)
- Moore v. State (N.D. 2007)
- United States v. Matthews (11th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Matthews (11th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Quentin Miller, A/K/A "Q" Quentin Miller (3d Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Miller (3d Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Graciani (1st Cir. 1995)
- United States v. Graciani (1st Cir. 1995)
- United States v. Charles R. Collins (9th Cir. 1990)
- State v. Alexander (Iowa 1990)
- Garnett v. State (Wyo. 1989)
- Brady v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- United States v. Lawrence Prince, Screenco, Inc., Climatrol Corporation and Emery Findley, Jr. (5th Cir. 1976)
- Riscard v. United States (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1972)
- United States v. A. B. Bishop (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. A. B. Bishop (5th Cir. 1970)
- Stiltner v. Rhay (District Court, E.D. Washington 1965)
- Padgett v. United States (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1965)
- S (Board of Immigration Appeals 1962)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The appellant was indicted for murder under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111. Thereafter he entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently on the date set for trial he appeared with his court-appointed counsel. He withdrew the plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of second degree murder. On that plea the Court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A year and a half later he filed a motion stated to be pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 33, 18 U.S.C.A. for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In reality the complaint was that the Government offered no evidence and that the testimony of the witnesses as to the altercation resulting in the homicide as well as the doctors’ medical opinions on the cause of death should have been offered. While it is expressed in an inartful way we treat the papers as though they state that had this been done, the Trial Court would not have found him guilty.
But a plea of guilty is a judicial admission of all of the elements of the crime and no proof is needed. Newalk v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 254 F. 2d 869. So long as the plea of guilty having these legal consequences stands these matters are foreclosed. A motion for new trial, F.R.Crim.P. 33, would not be the way of raising the question of the validity of the plea of guilty. But treating all of the papers as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 proceeding as appellant has urged us to do, there is nothing in the moving papers showing anything which would require a hearing or which would entitle him to relief from the judgment of conviction upon his plea of guilty.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.