green
Positive treatment
19.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. German Suarez-Arzon
Typically, Rule 33 is not available to defendants who have pleaded guilty (rather than gone to trial), see United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567 , 1572 n.3 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and it is not designed to redress alleged sentencing errors, see United States v. Camacho, 370 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Baker
Graciani, 61 F.3d at 78 (emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979); United States v. Prince, 533 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir.1976); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam); 3 Charles A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 556, at 313 (2d ed.1982)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oladokun
United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1989)); Moore’s Federal Practice—Criminal Procedure § 633.02.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. State
See United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 , 648 n. 3 (3rd Cir.1999); United States v. Graciani 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam). [¶ 12] When a defendant has pled guilty and no trial was held, the appropriate analysis is for “manifest injustice” under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dyess
A defendant who enters a guilty plea cannot thereafter use Rule 33 as a wedge to undo his acknowledgment that he committed the offense.” United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
USA v. Salcedo
Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Lane Walter
The district court's conclusion was not clearly erroneous. 10 Upon finding that extraordinary circumstances did not exist in Walter's case, the district court correctly ruled that it did not have the authority to depart downward on the basis of childhood abuse. 11 As we made clear in Roe, 976 F.2d at 1219, n. 1 , this decision does not conflict with United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d at 103, in which we held that a district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward is not reviewable on appeal.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Justin Strom
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Darrell David Rice
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Quentin Miller, A/K/A \Q\" Quentin Miller"
See id. ("A defendant who enters a guilty plea cannot thereafter use Rule 33 as a wedge to undo his acknowledgment that he committed the offense.”) (citing United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir. 1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam)). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Miller
See id. ("A defendant who enters a guilty plea cannot thereafter use Rule 33 as a wedge to undo his acknowledgment that he committed the offense.") (citing United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir. 1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir. 1961) (per curiam)). 7 Section 2255, as amended by AEDPA, bars second or successive habeas petitions absent exceptional circumstances and certification by the appropriate court of appeals.
cited
Cited "see"
Harold Hemminger v. United States
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (holding that Rule 33 relief is unavailable to a party who forgoes a trial by pleading guilty).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kellett
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. ___ _____________ _______ 1990) (per curiam) (a defendant who pleads guilty may not bring a motion for a new trial under Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kellett
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (a defendant who pleads guilty may not bring a motion for a new trial under Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Graciani
See United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam); see also United States v. Prince, 533 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir.1976) (applying same principle in bar of proffered Rule 33 motion following plea of nolo contendere); see generally 3 Charles A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 556, at 313 (2d ed.1982); cf. United States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 698 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that a defendant, by entering an unconditional plea of guil…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Graciani
See ___ United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir. 1989) (per _____________ _______ curiam); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir. _____________ _______ 1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir. ________ _____________ 1961) (per curiam); see also United States v. Prince, 533 F.2d ___ ____ _____________ ______ ____________________ 10The Fifth Circuit has suggested in dictum that "to avoid delay" a criminal defendant may, alternatively, ask the court of appeals to remand before initiating proceedings to in the district court.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Alexander
See, e.g., United States v. Collins, 898 F.2d 103, 104 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979); Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961); United States v. Forrest, 356 F.Supp. 343, 344 (W.D.Mich.1973); see also State v. Kluge, 198 Neb. 115, 118 , 251 N.W.2d 737, 739 (1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles R. COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Charles R. COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant
87-3130.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 7, 1990.
Charles R. Collins, Texarkana, Tex., pro se., William R. Hogan and Mark Bartlett, Asst. U.S. Attys., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Browning, Kozinski, Per Curiam, Rymer.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
[*104] PER CURIAM:
Appellant Collins was charged with second degree murder and initially pled not guilty. He later changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The sentence was ultimately affirmed on appeal.
Collins now appeals the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. He claims the government failed to provide him with exculpatory statements from witnesses and a psychological report. Without this information, Collins asserts, he was unable to evaluate properly the strength of the government’s case before pleading guilty.
Rule 33 states, “[t]he court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to that defendant if required in the interest of justice.” By its terms, Rule 33 applies only to cases in which a trial has occurred. When the defendant has pled guilty, as here, no trial has occurred and the Rule 33 remedy is unavailable. In sum, “the validity of a guilty plea cannot be questioned by way of a motion for new trial.” United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th Cir.1979) (citation omitted); see Williams v. United States, 290 F.2d 217, 218 (5th Cir.1961) (per curiam).
Collins’ remedy, if any, is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
AFFIRMED.