29 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,786 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"
Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,611 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
Hill v. Lockhart
474 U.S. 52 (1985) Cited 20,006 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue
Jones v. Barnes
463 U.S. 745 (1983) Cited 11,152 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
Teague v. Lane
489 U.S. 288 (1989) Cited 7,706 times 99 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively
Chaidez v. United States
568 U.S. 342 (2013) Cited 1,473 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,975 times 6 Legal Analyses
In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
People v. Lopez
71 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 2,855 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[.]"
Desist v. United States
394 U.S. 244 (1969) Cited 829 times
Holding Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 non-retroactive
People v. Ford
86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 1,246 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

The People, Appellant,v.Roman Baret, Respondent.

29 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 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 Strickland claim can be brought to challenge a guilty plea, but rejecting the claim at issue

Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant

Holding that the rule announced in Taylor v. Louisiana requiring the jury venire be drawn from a fair cross section of the community is procedural and does not apply retroactively

Holding that Padilla could not be applied retroactively to cases which became final before the case was decided

In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

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 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 non-retroactive

In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.