Vanwinkle v. United States, No. 09-3462 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner-Appellant Arthur Vanwinkle pled guilty to federal theft and conspiracy charges in exchange for the government dismissal of more serious offenses. The district court sentenced Petitioner to over 120 months' imprisonment. Instead of appealing his plea or sentence, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his sentence, challenging the plea and sentence on constitutional grounds. A federal magistrate denied his motion, holding that Petitioner had no bases to challenge his plea or sentence. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings in their entirety, but noted that "reasonable jurists could disagree" with how the court handled Petitioner's legal sufficiency claim. The court granted Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability on that one claim, and the Sixth Circuit granted this review. The Court found that Petitioner's plea "serve[d] as an admission that he is not innocent of the crimes charged." The Court reasoned that because Petitioner's argument that the same evidence he failed to object to at trial was now legally insufficient he could not challenge his sentence and plea now. The Court affirmed the district court's denial of Petitioner's motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.