green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
94.4 score
“the faretta case law does not provide for proceeding pro se without assertion of the right to self-representation. there simply is no precedent in this circuit for proceeding pro se by constructive notice without an obvious assertion of the right to self-representation.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jesse Steven Castro v. the State of Texas
an attorney's responsibility is to investigate and to evaluate his client's options in the course of the subject legal proceedings and then to advise the client as to the merits of each.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Vincent Savarese
by pleading guilty, a defendant waives several constitutional rights, including the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and the sixth amendment rights to a jury trial and to confrontation of one's accusers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Cromer
the faretta case law does not provide for proceeding pro se without assertion of the right to self-representation. there simply is no precedent in this circuit for proceeding pro se by constructive notice without an obvious assertion of the right to self-representation.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Vernard Miles, Jr. v. Donald A. Dorsey, Warden Attorney General of the State of New Mexico
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
unavoidable influence or pressure from sources such as codefendants, friends or family does not make a plea involuntary....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mohammad Shakeelabbasi v. Warden Gregory Werner
Va. 1970) (emotional entreatments by family insufficient to make plea involuntary); Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1142 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Unavoidable influence or pressure from sources such as codefendants, friends or family does not make a plea involuntary.’’) (citation omitted)); Miles v. Dorsey, 61 F.3d 1459, 1469 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The fact that [a defendant’s] family urged [the defendant] to plead so that they would receive the leniency offered under the plea agreement does not lead to the conclusion that [the defendant’s] no contest plea was involuntary.”) (citations omit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Franklin Hughes, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea . . . will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenard Singh v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
Cronic applies only to “a very narrow spectrum of cases,” when counsel is so ineffective “that the defendant [i]s in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1153 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dennis Christensen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
“A defendant’s knowing and voluntary plea, with the benefit of com- petent counsel, waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceed- ings.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cross v. United States
“If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of his guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea ... will be upheld on federal review.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blanco v. United States
“If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of his guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea ... will be upheld on federal review.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. United States
“If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of his guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea ... will be upheld on federal review.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1164 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1064 (11th Cir. 1986)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Strother v. United States
“If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of his guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea ... will be upheld on federal review.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells v. United States
“While it need not be errorless, counsel’s advice ‘must be within the realm of competence demanded of attorneys representing criminal defendants.’” Jones v. White, 992 F.2d 1548, 1557 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1151 (11th Cir 1991)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevens v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas)
“Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . is not binding on state courts.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tull v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea will be upheld on federal review.’ ” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Odrick v. United States
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Threatt v. United States
To avoid rendering constitutionally deficient performance, an attorney “need only provide his client with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, so that the accused may make an informed and conscious choice between accepting the [government's] offer and going to trial.” Stano v. Duggar, 921 F.2d 1125, 1151 (11th Cir. 1991). 5 To determine whether a plea was knowing and voluntary, the court looks to the record of the plea colloquy and the signed written plea agreement.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barnes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Citrus County)
But the federal due process standard for setting aside a state court plea is different: “‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea . . . will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc)).14 Even if there is some overlap between Florida’s “good cause” standard to withdraw a plea before sentencing and the federal due process …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pitts v. Secretary, Department of Corrections(Pinellas County)
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).2 Although a defendant’s statements during a plea colloquy are not insurmountable, “the representations of the defendant [at a plea heari…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Daniel Eric Cobble
United States v. Cash, 47 F.3d 1083, 1088 (11th Cir. 1995)(citing Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1148 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Aaron Emmanuel Walker
This is because Rule 11 sets out “the constitutional minimum require- ments for a knowing and voluntary plea.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elbert Lee Williams
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S. Ct. 1602, 1608 (1973); Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (“The Supreme Court has given finality to guilty pleas by precluding claims of constitutional deprivations occurring prior to entry of the plea.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hinestroza v. Florida Department of Corrections
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150-51 (11th Cir. 1991) (alteration added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barrow v. Gordy
See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005); Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph v. United States
The Cronic presumption of prejudice “applies to only a very narrow spectrum of cases where the circumstances leading to counsel’s ineffectiveness are so egregious that the defendant was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1153 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morales v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough)
P. 11(b)(1)(H)); Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea . . . will be upheld on federal review.’”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burnett v. United States
Mr. Burnett also cites an Eleventh Circuit dissent that raises the idea of the court’s “protecting duty,” which requires intervention “when the court is put on notice that the defendant lacks assistance of counsel.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1163 (11th Cir. 1991) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Wright
The record supports a finding that Ms. Anderson “understood the charges against [her] and the consequences of pleading guilty, and voluntarily entered the plea, such that [her] plea should be upheld on federal review.” (Doc. 8-25); Merilien v. Warden, No. 17- 13117, 2019 WL 3079386 , *2 (11th Cir. May 3, 2019) (citing Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991)); see also Wilson v. United States, 962 F.2d 996, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives all constitutional challenges to a conviction, including claims of ineffective assistance of c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webster v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
(2×)
“The plea colloquy, provided in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, constitutes the constitutional minimum requirements for a knowing and voluntary plea for federal courts, but that rule is not binding on state courts.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harden v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dias v. United States
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150-51 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos Montemayor
The Rule 11 plea colloquy “constitutes the constitutional minimum requirements for a knowing and voluntary plea for federal courts.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Patterson
“Even if a defendant asserts self-representation, the right may be waived through defendant’s subsequent conduct indicating he is vacillating on the issue or has abandoned his request 7 Some courts have justified the lack of inquiry by asserting that the right to counsel “attaches automatically and must be waived affirmatively to be lost, while the [right to self-representation] does ‘not attach unless and until it [i]s asserted.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1143 (11th Cir.1991) (en banc) (second alteration in original), quoting Dorman v. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 1358, 1366 (11th …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kendrick Dwayne Walker v. State
“An attorney’s responsibility is to investigate and to evaluate his client’s options in the course of the subject legal proceedings and then to advise the client as to the merits of each.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1151 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d at 74 (noting, in the context of plea offers, that counsel “should exert his best efforts to insure that decisions of his client are made only after the client has been informed of relevant considerations” (quotation omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parmley v. Estes
Massey v. Warden, 733 F. App’x 980 , 988 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clayton v. Crow
Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242-44 ; Frank, 646 F.2d at 882; Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schwartz v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Thus, the Supreme Court has made clear that “a defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel ‘may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann.’” Id. at 56-57 (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)); see id. at 57 (The Court’s “concern in McMann v. Richardson with the quality of counsel’s performance in advising a defendant whether to plead guilty stemmed from the more gener…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wease v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “[a] reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea . . . will be upheld on federal review.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Department of Corrections
To invoke the right of self-representation, a defendant must “clearly and unequivocally” request to do so in a manner that is “understandable to the trial court by the reasonable person standard.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1144 (11th Cir. 1991); ECF No. [27] at 15-16.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abonza-Torres v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
“A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process: ‘If a defendant understands the charges against him, understands the consequences of a guilty plea, and voluntarily chooses to plead guilty, without being coerced to do so, the guilty plea . . . will be upheld on federal review.’” Stano v, Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Frank v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 873, 882 (5th Cir. 1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Saylors v. United States
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1150-51 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gordon v. United States
As to nature of the inquiry, “counsel owes a lesser duty to a client who pleads guilty than to one who decides to go to trial . . . .” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1151 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (quoting Wofford v Wainwright, 748 F.2d 1505, 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1140 (11th Cir. 1991).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Tyrone Calhoun
Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1140 (11th Cir. 1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calvin Leon Massey v. Warden, Attorney General State of Alabama
DISCUSSION A. Voluntariness of Guilty Pleas “A reviewing federal court may set aside a state court guilty plea only for failure to satisfy due process.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1141 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citing Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243-44 , 89 S. Ct. at 1712-13 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
& SC16-1279 Robert Earl Peterson v. State of Florida and Robert Earl Peterson v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
(2×)
Cronic, thus, “created an exception to the Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984),] standard for ineffective assistance of counsel and acknowledged. that certain circumstances are so egregiously prejudicial that ineffective assistance of counsel will be presumed.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1152 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alexander Michael Roy
(13×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The last time that we sat en banc in a case involving a Cronic issue, we emphasized that the exception applied “to only a very narrow spectrum of cases” where “the defendant was in effect denied any meaningful assistance at all.” Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1153 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Kaid, 502 F.3d 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2007) (expressing “reluctance to extend a rule of per se prejudice in any new direction”) (quotation marks omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Nationalist Movement, a Mississippi Non-Profit Corporation Incorporated in Georgia
v.
The City of Cumming, Forsyth County, Georgia, Forsyth County Board of Education
v.
The City of Cumming, Forsyth County, Georgia, Forsyth County Board of Education
89-8417.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 18, 1990.
Published
33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 668
The NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, a Mississippi non-profit
corporation incorporated in Georgia, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The CITY OF CUMMING, FORSYTH COUNTY, GEORGIA, Forsyth County
Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-8417.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 18, 1990.
Richard Barrett, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gordon S. Smith, S. Samuel Griffin, King & Spalding, Atlanta, Ga., for City of Cumming.
Robert S. Stubbs, III, McVay & Stubbs, Canton, Ga., for Forsyth County, Georgia.
Sam S. Harben, Jr., Harben & Hartley Law Firm, Gainesville, Ga., for Forsyth County Bd. of Educ.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, O'Kelley, District Judge, Presiding.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, COX, BIRCH AND DUBINA, Circuit Judges[*].
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion October 2, 1990, 11th Cir., 1990, 913 F.2d 885)
BY THE COURT:
A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc without oral argument during the week of February 11, 1991. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
*
Judge Edmondson is recused and will not participate in this decision