- 11 - the criminal case. It is well established that respondent is a party in privity with the United States. See Amos v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 50, 52 (1964) (privity exists between the United States and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue), affd. 360 F.2d 358 (4th Cir. 1965). We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s arguments concerning waiver of his constitutional rights. “A defendant who enters such a plea simultaneously waives several constitutional rights, including * * * his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers.” McCarthy v. United States, supra at 466. Petitioner is an educated individual. Petitioner voluntarily signed the plea agreement. The plea agreement clearly states the rights petitioner forfeited in return for a more lenient sentence. Petitioner was further advised of his rights by the U.S. District Court at the rule 11 hearing. We are also unpersuaded by petitioner’s arguments concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and inability to question the Government’s evidence and calculations at trial in the criminal case. Petitioner failed to appeal his conviction. Petitioner should have raised these objections on direct appeal of the criminal case, if he so desired. Lilley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-602, affd. without published opinion 925 F.2d 417 (3d Cir. 1991). Petitioner’s allegations are not of the character to warrant an exception to collateral estoppel. See Klein v.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011