green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.8 score
“a waiver is voluntary if, under the totality of the 15 circumstances, was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than coercion or 16 improper inducement.”
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Parker v. Baca
a waiver is voluntary if, under the totality of the 15 circumstances, was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than coercion or 16 improper inducement.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Von Davis v. Charlotte Jenkins
Likewise, the waiver must be “entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his own counsel.” Brady, 397 U.S. at 755 (quoting and adopting the standard as stated in Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 , 572 n.2 (5th Cir. 1957) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26, 78 (1958)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mora-Gomez
(2×)
See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 , 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (emphasis added) (quoting Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 , 572 n. 2 (5th Cir.1957), rev'd on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958)). 8 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fambo v. Smith
(2×)
See Brady *595 v. United States, supra, 397 U.S. at 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463 , citing with approval Judge Tuttle’s decision in Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 , 572 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1957), rev’d, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Smith v. Johnson
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958), rev’g 246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1957); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101 , 62 S.Ct. 964 , 86 L.Ed. 1302 (1942); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275 , 61 S.Ct. 574 , 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alex Popeko
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 242 F.2d 101 , set aside en banc, 1957, 246 F.2d 571 , reversed per curiam, 1958, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. L. C. Green
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 242 F.2d 101 , vacated on rehearing en banc, 246 F.2d 571 , reversed, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America Ex Rel. Roy C. Brown v. Hon. J. Edwin Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir.), rev’d on confession of error by the Solicitor General, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958); ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty §§ 3.1(a), 6.4-6.5 (1968).
examined
Cited "see"
Vincent E. Scott v. United States
(4×)
See Shelton v. United States, 242 F. 2d 101 (5th Cir.), rev’d on rehearing, 246 F.2d 571 (1957) (en banc), rev’d 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958) (per curiam), discussed infra. .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rigby v. Russell
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States (C.A. 5, 1957) 242 F.2d 101 , reh. 246 F.2d 571 , reversed 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Ex Rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan
(2×)
See Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571, 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1957) (dissenting opinion), rev’d on confession of error by Solicitor General, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958). 32 .
cited
Cited "see"
Bobby Gene Johnson v. United States
See subsequent en danc decision, reversing on the merits, 246 F.2d 571 , vacated and remanded, 356 U.S. 26 , 79 S. Ot. 563, 2 L.Ed.2d 579 . 21 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles F. Waugaman v. United States
(2×)
See, Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 101 , reversed en banc, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 571 , reversed, 1958, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Skok v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Shelton v. United States, 242 F.2d 101, 112-113 (5th Cir.1957), set aside by court sitting en banc, 246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir.1957), en banc decision reversed and original judgment remanding to trial court upheld, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958); State v. Ledezma, supra; Thacker v. State, 254 Ind. 665, 669-670 , 262 N.E.2d 189, 191-192 (1970); Campbell v. State, supra, 229 Ind. 198 , 96 N.E.2d 876 ; United States v. Tyler, 413 F.Supp. 1403, 1405-1406 (M.D.Fla.1976). *82 The issues concerning Skok’s pleas have not previously been litigated, and Skok is clearly facing …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Norman Cooper, Doing Business as C & H Contracting Company
(2×)
The applicable Supreme Court precedent clearly holds the government accountable with regard to any promises made to induce a defendant to plead guilty: “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. ” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 269 , 92 S.Ct. 495, 502 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (emphasis added); see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 , 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (“‘“[A] plea of guilty entered into by on…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dodd v. Williams
(2×)
See also Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571 , 572 n. 2 (5th Cir.1957) (en banc), rev’d. on confession of error on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958): [A] plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his own counsel, must stand unless induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper rel…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George A. Watts v. United States
(2×)
Compare Shelton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 571 , reversed 1958, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 . 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shelton
v.
United States
v.
United States
223, Misc.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 10, 1958.
Petitioner pro se., Solicitor General Rankin for the United States.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 208 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Nevada (1)
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. Upon consideration of the entire record and confession of error by the Solicitor General that the plea of guilty may have been improperly obtained, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.