From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harkins et al. v. Scattered Corp.

U.S.
Oct 2, 1995
516 U.S. 818 (1995)

Summary

stating "in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Harris

Opinion

No. 94-2030.

October 2, 1995, OCTOBER TERM, 1995.


C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 47 F. 3d 857.


Summaries of

Harkins et al. v. Scattered Corp.

U.S.
Oct 2, 1995
516 U.S. 818 (1995)

stating "in a ‘negotiated’ plea agreement, where a sentence of specific duration has been made part of a plea bargain, it would clearly make a sham of the negotiated plea process for courts to allow defendants to later challenge their sentence; this would, in effect, give defendants a second bite at the sentencing process"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Harris

discussing difference between negotiated, open, and hybrid guilty pleas

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Ash
Case details for

Harkins et al. v. Scattered Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HARKINS ET AL. v. SCATTERED CORP

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

516 U.S. 818 (1995)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Luketic

At the other end of the negotiated plea agreement continuum, a plea agreement may specify not only the…

BGHA, L.L.C. v. CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY

FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,Inc., 477 U.S. at 250; State of Texas v. Thompson, 70 F.3d 390,…