§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

27 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,807 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"

  2. 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

  3. Lafler v. Cooper

    566 U.S. 156 (2012)   Cited 4,757 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, was satisfied where, among other things, a defendant had rejected a favorable plea offer based on the unreasonable advice of counsel

  4. 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

  5. Missouri v. Frye

    566 U.S. 134 (2012)   Cited 3,801 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant can show prejudice under Strickland even absent a showing that the deficient performance precluded him from going to trial

  6. Roe v. Flores-Ortega

    528 U.S. 470 (2000)   Cited 5,726 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding in criminal habeas context that counsel's failure to file a timely appeal is presumptively prejudicial, with no need for a "further showing from the defendant of the merits of his underlying claims"

  7. Immigration & Naturalization Service v St. Cyr

    533 U.S. 289 (2001)   Cited 1,383 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title of provision, "Elimination of Custody Review by Habeas Corpus," along with broad statement of intent to preclude review, was not sufficient to bar review of habeas corpus petitions

  8. 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"

  9. People v. Walker

    54 Cal.3d 1013 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 680 times
    In People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1027, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861 (1991), overruled on other grounds by People v. Villalobos, 54 Cal.4th 177, 182–83, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 491, 277 P.3d 179 (2012), the trial court ordered defendant to pay a fine even though the plea agreement did not contemplate the imposition of a fine at sentencing.

  10. H029324, People v. Kim

    45 Cal.4th 1078 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 337 times
    Recognizing that “a lower court's ruling on a petition for the writ is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard”

  11. Section 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1326   Cited 31,015 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Defining offense elements

  12. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,711 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

  13. Section 1227 - Deportable aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1227   Cited 7,882 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Granting this discretion to the Attorney General

  14. Section 1255 - Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence

    8 U.S.C. § 1255   Cited 2,832 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Listing classes of nonimmigrants, such as students and tourists

  15. Section 8 - Repealed

    22 U.S.C. § 8   Cited 5 times

    22 U.S.C. § 8 Pub. L. 89-554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 645 Section, act May 24, 1924, ch. 182, §7, 43 Stat. 141, related to recommissioning diplomatic and consular officers on July 1, 1924.

  16. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,157 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  17. Rule 4.414 - Criteria affecting probation

    Cal. R. 4.414   Cited 524 times

    Criteria affecting the decision to grant or deny probation include facts relating to the crime and facts relating to the defendant. (a) Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime include: (1) The nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the crime as compared to other instances of the same crime; (2) Whether the defendant was armed with or used a weapon; (3) The vulnerability of the victim; (4) Whether the defendant inflicted physical or emotional injury; (5) The degree of monetary loss