United States v. Michael Lee Neely

Good Law
38 F.3d 458·94 Daily Journal DAR 14760·1994 WL 571915·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29156·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7991
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 20, 199493-55232California1,825 words

Opinion

Opinion

We consider the effect of subsequent changes in Title 18 of the United States Code on our holding in United States v. Myers, 451 F.2d 402 (9th Cir.1972), that a federal defendant subject to state prosecution can enter a federal guilty plea knowingly and intelligently only if he or she has been informed that the court lacks authority to impose a sentence to be served concurrently with any state sentence subsequently imposed. We conclude that Myers is still good law.

I.

In October 1988, Michael Lee Neely was charged with conspiracy and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a), 846. While these charges were pending, Neely was taken into state custody on California drug charges.

Later that year, a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued, directing state officials to produce Neely in federal court for arraignment. On January 20,1989, Neely pleaded guilty to the federal charges. The following month, he pleaded guilty to the state charges and was sentenced to fifty-two months in prison. Mistakenly believing Neely was already serving a federal sentence, the state court ordered the two sentences served…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.