United States v. Jose Melendrez-Salas

In this appeal from a conviction for smuggling marijuana, appellant makes three assignments of error: (1) the evidence. was insufficient to sustain the conviction, (2) the court improperly denied a jury request during deliberation to have certain testimony read again, and (3) the court abused its discretion by refusing to accept a plea of guilty. We have considered all of the contentions, find that none has merit, and will discuss only the third.

Counsel had discussed appellant’s offer to plead guilty and tendered to the trial court a guilty plea to a lesser offense. This was refused. Defendant was unwilling to admit outright that he was guilty of knowingly carrying marijuana in his automobile but only that he had reason to suspect that he was. The prosecution had agreed not to oppose probation if the plea were accepted.

The acceptance of a guilty plea is discretionary.

Appellant relies on North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to support his contention that a trial judge must accept a knowing and intelligent guilty plea despite a protestation of innocence. But we observe that Alford specifically holds the contrary.

See also United States…