John R. Toney - Page 11

                                       - 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