39 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,593 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Holland v. Florida
560 U.S. 631 (2010) Cited 14,045 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 2254 does not preclude equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based on attorney misconduct in habeas proceedings
Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,598 times 131 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation
Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (1969) Cited 13,220 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here
North Carolina v. Alford
400 U.S. 25 (1970) Cited 10,642 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual may "consent to the imposition of a prison sentence" despite maintaining that he is innocent of the charged crime
Brady v. United States
397 U.S. 742 (1970) Cited 7,302 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise"
United States v. Vonn
535 U.S. 55 (2002) Cited 1,581 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant who does not object to a Rule 11 error in the district court is subject to the Rule 52(b) plain-error standard on appeal, even though Rule 11 does not have a provision stating that plain error review applies to claims not brought to the district court's attention
People v. Lopez
71 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 2,853 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Lopez, the New York Court of Appeals recognized "the rare case" where a defendant's plea allocution "casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea[.]"
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 624 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
People v. Harris
61 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 1,659 times
In People v Harris (61 N.Y.2d 9), within the context of determining whether a guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, the Court of Appeals concluded that no mandatory catechism was required.

The People, Respondent,v.Federico Perez, Appellant.

39 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that § 2254 does not preclude equitable tolling of a statute of limitations based on attorney misconduct in habeas proceedings

Holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation

Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here

Holding that an individual may "consent to the imposition of a prison sentence" despite maintaining that he is innocent of the charged crime

Holding that "a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise"

Holding that a defendant who does not object to a Rule 11 error in the district court is subject to the Rule 52(b) plain-error standard on appeal, even though Rule 11 does not have a provision stating that plain error review applies to claims not brought to the district court's attention

In Lopez, the New York Court of Appeals recognized "the rare case" where a defendant's plea allocution "casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea[.]"

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

In People v Harris (61 N.Y.2d 9), within the context of determining whether a guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, the Court of Appeals concluded that no mandatory catechism was required.