United States v. Davila

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=United States v. Davila

|ArgueDate=April 15

|ArgueYear=2013

|DecideDate=June 13

|DecideYear=2013

|FullName=United States, Petitioner v. Anthony Davila

|USVol=569

|USPage=597

|ParallelCitations=133 S. Ct. 2139; 186 L. Ed. 2d 139; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4541; 81 U.S.L.W. 4394

|Docket=12-167

|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_167/argument

|Prior=664 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20111221102 1355] (11th Cir. 2011)

|Subsequent=

|Holding=

|Majority=Ginsburg

|JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan

|Concurrence=Scalia

|JoinConcurrence=Thomas

|LawsApplied=

}}

United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a federal judge participates in the plea process in violation of rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a guilty plea need not be vacated if the record shows prejudice to the decision to plea due to rule 11(h).Syllabus p. 2

Notes

{{reflist}}

References

{{refbegin}}

  • {{wikicite |ref=scotus |reference={{ussc|name=United States v. Davila|volume=569|page=597|pin=|year=2013}}.}}
  • {{cite journal |author= Supreme Court of the United States |date=August 2012 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-167.htm|title= Docket for United States v. Davila |ref=docket}}
  • {{cite journal |author=United States Department of Justice |date=December 2012 |url=https://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/2pet/7pet/2012-0167.pet.rep.pdf|title=Reply Brief for United States v. Davila |ref=doj}}
  • {{cite journal |author=American Bar Association |date=March 2013 |url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-167_resp_amcu_nacdl.authcheckdam.pdf|title=Amicus Brief for United States v. Davila |ref=aba}}
  • {{cite court |litigants=United States v. Davila |vol=664 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1355 |pinpoint= |court=11th Cir. |date=2011 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20111221102 |accessdate=2018-08-07 |quote= |ref=11th}}

{{refend}}