41 Cited authorities

Padilla v. Kentucky
559 U.S. 356 (2010) Cited 8,613 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
Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745 (1982) Cited 8,741 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"
Addington v. Texas
441 U.S. 418 (1979) Cited 2,628 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the individual's interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence"
Custis v. United States
511 U.S. 485 (1994) Cited 1,276 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant may not collaterally attack prior conviction used to enhance sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because the statute does not explicitly permit such challenges
People v. Mendez
19 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 1999) Cited 982 times
Affirming the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause
People v. Davis
36 Cal.4th 510 (Cal. 2005) Cited 762 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding lack of presence harmless where counsel had "ample opportunity to discuss" the defendant's thoughts before a hearing and that "there is no way on this record to determine, had defendant been present at the hearing," what information the defendant would have provided
Woodby v. Immigration Service
385 U.S. 276 (1966) Cited 747 times
Holding that "no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true"
People v. Buttram
30 Cal.4th 773 (Cal. 2003) Cited 505 times
In Buttram, we expressly distinguished the situation, present here, in which a defendant on appeal challenges the trial court's authority to impose the lid sentence: "Defendant here does not argue that the maximum sentence provided in his plea bargain was invalid because it exceeded the legally authorized sentence for his convictions.
People v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty. (Zamudio)
23 Cal.4th 183 (Cal. 2000) Cited 521 times
Recognizing a new theory may be presented for the first time on appeal if "it raised only a question of law and can be decided based on undisputed facts"
People v. Johnson
47 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2009) Cited 377 times
In People v. Johnson, 47 Cal. 4th 668, 677 (2009), the California Supreme Court noted two exceptions to section 1237.5's requirement of a certificate of probable cause.
Section 1227 - Deportable aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1227 Cited 7,882 times 40 Legal Analyses
Granting this discretion to the Attorney General
Rule 8.304 - Filing the appeal; certificate of probable cause
Cal. R. 8.304 Cited 1,503 times
(a)Notice of appeal (1) To appeal from a judgment or an appealable order of the superior court in a felony case-other than a judgment imposing a sentence of death-the defendant or the People must file a notice of appeal in that superior court. To appeal after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or after an admission of probation violation, the defendant must also comply with (b). (2) As used in (1), "felony case" means any criminal action in which a felony is charged, regardless of the outcome. A
Rule 5.800 - Deferred entry of judgment
Cal. R. 5.800 Cited 132 times
(a) Eligibility (§ 790) A child who is the subject of a petition under section 602 alleging violation of at least one felony offense may be considered for a deferred entry of judgment if all of the following apply: (1) The child is 14 years or older at the time of the hearing on the application for deferred entry of judgment; (2) The offense alleged is not listed in section 707(b); (3) The child has not been previously declared a ward of the court based on the commission of a felony offense; (4)

PEOPLE v. ARRIAGA

41 Cited authorities

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 "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"

Holding that "the individual's interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by proof more substantial than a mere preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that defendant may not collaterally attack prior conviction used to enhance sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because the statute does not explicitly permit such challenges

Affirming the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause

Holding lack of presence harmless where counsel had "ample opportunity to discuss" the defendant's thoughts before a hearing and that "there is no way on this record to determine, had defendant been present at the hearing," what information the defendant would have provided

Holding that "no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true"

Recognizing a new theory may be presented for the first time on appeal if "it raised only a question of law and can be decided based on undisputed facts"

In People v. Johnson, 47 Cal. 4th 668, 677 (2009), the California Supreme Court noted two exceptions to section 1237.5's requirement of a certificate of probable cause.

Granting this discretion to the Attorney General