Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

607 F.2d 337

Docket No. 77-2098.

United States v. Hancock

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted March 13, 1979.

Decided Oct. 16, 1979.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1979-10-16

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Although a criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty, a request to withdraw such a plea made before imposition of sentence should be considered carefully and with liberality.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including United States v. Gould, United States v. Vidakovich

Relies on Kercheval v. United States · Barker v. United States · Dorton v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-10-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2003

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

1201979198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Peter G. Pierce, III, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.

¶2Larry D. Patton, U.S. Atty., and Charles Lee Waters, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before DOYLE, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4McKAY, Circuit Judge.

¶5Appellant sought to withdraw his plea of guilty at his sentencing hearing prior to imposition of sentence. This motion was authorized by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). The trial court summarily denied the request and sentenced appellant.

¶6Although a criminal defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty, a request to withdraw such a plea made before imposition of sentence should be considered carefully and with liberality. Dorton v. United States, 447 F.2d 401, 411-12 (10th Cir. 1971); Burnett v. United States, 404 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1968). The granting of permission to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the court, id.,but that discretion is properly exercised only if the decision reached comports with the broad standards of liberality mandated by earlier cases. See Dorton v. United States, 447 F.2d at 412; Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 224, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927).

¶7Reviewing the record as a whole we believe that under our standards for the exercise of discretion the motion to withdraw the plea should have been granted. No hearing was held in which appellant had *338an adequate opportunity to develop support for his reasons for wanting to change his plea. The court did not outline its reasons for denying the motion.1 The government opposed the motion, but it did not claim, much less did it demonstrate, that it would be prejudiced in any way by appellant changing his plea.2 Nor is this a case where the defendant’s motivation was found to be manipulation of the legal system. See Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219, 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 1978).3

¶8REVERSED and remanded with directions to grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.

/607/f2d/337 · .json · Public domain