Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

590 F.2d 1338

Docket No. 77-5722

United States v. Cobos

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 8, 1979.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1979-03-08

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1979

3 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Tulsa Auto Dealers Auction v. North Side State Bank · United States v. Boatright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1979-03-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Juan Arnulfo Cobos, pro se.

¶3Michael P. Lynn, Dallas, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

¶4J. A. Canales, U. S. Atty., John M. Potter, George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶5Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.

¶7*1339PER CURIAM:

¶8Cobos and two others were charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 with conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute the same. The charge was contained in Count I of a three count indictment. The count was lengthy and alleged nine overt acts. On his plea of guilty under the count in question, defendant was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison with a special parole term of five years. On direct appeal he now contends that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.R. Crim.P. 11 in accepting his guilty plea.

¶9The transcript of the proceedings reveals that the Assistant United States Attorney read Count I of the indictment but that the court did not undertake to inform the defendant of the nature of the offense charged. Under similar circumstances this court held in United States v. Boatright, 588 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1979) that the defendant was entitled to plead again. Boatright controls the case sub judice and necessitates that the judgment of conviction be reversed.1

¶10REVERSED.

/590/f2d/1338 · .json · Public domain