You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Walter Eugene Smith, A/K/A Blair D. Kennedy, A/K/A Blair Dwayne Kennedy, A/K/A Justin Lee Harper, AKA James Clifford Parham

Citations: 54 F.3d 786; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 22372; 1995 WL 309970Docket: 94-30155

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 22, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for possessing counterfeit cashier's checks, conspiracy, and contempt of court. The primary legal issues included the validity of the indictment, the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and the imposition of a restitution order. Upon appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that a voluntary guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects. The indictment was deemed adequate under 18 U.S.C. § 512(a), despite minor phrasing issues. The court further upheld the denial of the appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as it was not contested that the plea was entered voluntarily. Additionally, the appellant's failure to raise the restitution issue at the district court level resulted in a waiver of appellate review. The court also rejected the appellant's motions to expand the record and for a motion in limine, finding the existing record sufficient and no prejudice shown. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision without oral argument, leaving the appellant's conviction and sentence intact.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Motions to Expand Record and Motion in Limine

Application: The court denies both motions as the existing record is sufficient and no prejudice is demonstrated.

Reasoning: Smith's motions to expand the record and for a 'motion in limine' are denied as the existing record is deemed sufficient and no prejudice is shown.

Sufficiency of Indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 512(a)

Application: The indictment sufficiently states the crime despite minor phrasing issues, meeting the legal standards required.

Reasoning: The court finds the indictment sufficiently states the crime under 18 U.S.C. § 512(a), confirming it meets necessary legal standards despite minor issues in phrasing.

Waiver of Appellate Review on Restitution

Application: Failure to raise the restitution issue in the district court results in a waiver of the right to appeal that issue.

Reasoning: Regarding restitution, the court notes that Smith did not raise this issue in the district court, waiving his right to appeal on that matter.

Waiver of Nonjurisdictional Defects by Guilty Plea

Application: A defendant who voluntarily enters a guilty plea waives the right to assert nonjurisdictional defects in the indictment.

Reasoning: The court affirms the conviction, stating that a defendant who voluntarily pleads guilty waives nonjurisdictional defects.

Withdrawal of Guilty Plea

Application: The court upheld the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, as the defendant did not contest the plea's voluntary nature.

Reasoning: Smith's assertion that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea due to the counterfeit checks belonging to a bogus organization is rejected as frivolous.