Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, 147 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert Edward Stansbury v. Arthur Calderon, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, 147 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2017)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1198 Requiring understanding of elements for voluntary guilty plea3 citing casesfinding that an explanation of the elements of the crime was constitutionally required where the charges were “far from simple or straightforward1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2017).published
    In most cases, therefore, some rehearsal of the elements of the offense is necessary. 147 F.3d 1193, 1198 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations, citations, and alteration omitted). 4 .
  • United States v. Weeks, 653 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2011).published 2 cites
    (finding that an explanation of the elements of the crime was constitutionally required where the charges were “far from simple or straightforward)
  • United States v. Rollings, 751 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014).published
    (finding plea involuntary where the defendant was “never informed by the indictment or otherwise of the elements of the offenses to which she pled guilty)
At page 1197 cited at this page1 citing case
  • United States v. Magallanes, 10 F. App'x 778 (10th Cir. 2001).unpublished 3 cites
    “To determine whether a Rule 11 error is harmless (i.e., whether the error affects substantial rights), we focus on whether the defendant’s knowledge and comprehension of the full and correct information would have been likely to affect hi…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Edward STANSBURY, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Arthur CALDERON, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellant
98-99004.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 5, 1998.
Published opinion
147 F.3d 1193
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6285
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 18382
1998 WL 462681
Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, California for respondent-appellant., Harry Simon, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California for petitioner-appellee.
Hug, Farris, Silverman.
Published

Prisoner Robert Stansbury moves to dismiss the Warden’s appeal of the Order of the district court dated February 26,1998. That order denied the Warden’s Motion to Dismiss Stanbury’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Warden’s Motion to Dismiss was based on alleged deficiencies in the verification of the petition. After denying the motion to dismiss, the district judge declined the Warden’s request to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The district court’s Order denying the motion to dismiss is not a final decision of the district court. It is an interlocutory order and therefore, not subject to immediate appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. No exception to the final judgment rule, such as the collateral order doctrine, applies. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction.

Stansbury’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.