U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Earnest Norman, and v. United States

Earnest Norman, and v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 4, 1970 · Chambers, Koelsch, Per Curiam, Powell
429 F.2d 1310; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7868 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David L. Ludvigson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., F. Steele Langford, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Earnest Norman, and v. United States

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a denial of an application for a writ of coram nobis relies on McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418. It appears from McCarthy that a full compliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is required and that there must be a definite record made showing the plea of guilty was entered knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily.

Here Mr. Norman was not advised of the nature of the charge or the possible maximum penalties. He entered a plea of guilty solely as requested. He now asks that this court make the rule in McCarthy v. United States retroactive.

Under the rule of Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 833, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16, it appears that the rule in McCarthy v. United States was not to be applied retroactively and therefore would not apply to the conviction of Norman. This is not a case involving the violation of constitutional rights but merely a strict construction of Rule 11. Since the principal case of the appellant is not applied retroactively, the denial of the application for writ of coram nobis is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.