United States v. Larry D. Peterson and Larry D. Willis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant was not prejudiced where he had assured the court that he was not promised that his sentences would run concurrently
• holding that a defendant’s confession did not violate the interrogation technique prohibited by Seibert where agents presented the evidence against him before reading him his Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver because the defendant did not make any pre-warning statement
• \[ Seibert ] holds that post-warning statements are inadmissible if they duplicate pre-warning statements intentionally elicited in an effort to evade Miranda. \
• after pleading guilty in criminal case, defendant must have compelling explanation for differences in motion to withdraw plea and testimony in plea hearing
• defendant “has not established that he would not have pleaded guilty had counsel acted differently”
• “a motion that can succeed only if the defendant committed perjury at the plea proceedings may be rejected out of hand”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).