Myron Gerald Hinds v. United States
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Ignatius W. Faulisi v. Loren Daggett, Warden of United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (7th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Rea Lyn Segal (9th Cir. 1977)
- Edward Bunker v. Jack Wise (9th Cir. 1977)
- Myers v. United States (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1970)
- United States v. Albert Harris, III (6th Cir. 1980)
- Lawrence Clarence Lewis v. United States (9th Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Harold Hamilton (9th Cir. 1978)
- Johnson v. Mullen (R.I. 1978)
- Douglas Fruchtman v. Frank Kenton, Warden (9th Cir. 1976)
- Yellowwolf v. Morris (9th Cir. 1976)
- Joe Villarreal v. United States (9th Cir. 1974)
- Bettis v. United States (D.C. 1974)
- Díaz Díaz v. Torres Marrero (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1973)
- Application of the John R. Sasser, Jr. v. United States (9th Cir. 1972)
- Harlan Allen Tibbs v. United States (9th Cir. 1972)
- Sam A. Johnson v. United States (9th Cir. 1972)
- Alaway v. United States (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1972)
- Harry L. Davis, and v. United States (9th Cir. 1971)
- Eugene Salvatore Lupo v. United States (8th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Jacques Rene Henri Vermeulen (2d Cir. 1970)
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
Hinds is presently serving consecutive sentences in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, having been sentenced by the District Court of Arizona on his plea of guilty of breaking into a United States Post Office and a guilty plea to a separate indictment charging escape from custody.
This appeal is from the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. In his- motion, Hinds alleged that at the time of plea, the court failed to advise him of the consequences of his plea in that it “did not inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences.”
A judge is not required to inform a defendant prior to his plea, of the sentence he is to receive in the event he pleads guilty. It would be improper to do so. Here the court advised the defendant of the maximum sentences applicable to each charge. He was, therefore, effectively advised of the consequences of pleading guilty to each charge as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant claims he is a narcotic addict and for this reason was mentally incompetent at the time of arraignment and plea. We agree with the district court that there is no merit to this contention. See Sanchez v. United States, 401 F.2d 771 (CA 5, 1968).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.