47 Cited authorities

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,560 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (1969) Cited 13,233 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 10,659 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
Bradshaw v. Stumpf
545 U.S. 175 (2005) Cited 839 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a plea to be valid, a defendant must be “aware of the nature of the charges against him, including the elements of the ... charge to which he plead guilty”
People v. Scott
9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) Cited 3,906 times
Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"
People v. French
43 Cal.4th 36 (Cal. 2008) Cited 523 times
In French, the defendant pleaded no contest to six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of fourteen pursuant to a plea agreement in which he was to receive no more than eighteen years in prison.
In re Tahl
1 Cal.3d 122 (Cal. 1969) Cited 1,573 times
In People v. Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Tahl), the California Supreme Court interpreted Boykin v. Alabama as requiring that "each of the three rights mentioned-self-incrimination, confrontation, and jury trial-must be specifically and expressly enumerated for the benefit of and waived by the accused prior to acceptance of his guilty plea."
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.
People v. Vera
15 Cal.4th 269 (Cal. 1997) Cited 335 times
Recognizing that "the failure to obtain an express, personal waiver of the right to jury trial of prior conviction allegations does not constitute a violation of the state constitutional mandate" conferred by article I, section 16
People v. Holmes
32 Cal.4th 432 (Cal. 2004) Cited 268 times
Holding that simply reciting “[t]here's a factual basis,” is not adequate; the record must demonstrate the facts and the source of the facts, whether from defendant, defense counsel, or documents

PEOPLE v. PALMER

47 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

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 for a plea to be valid, a defendant must be “aware of the nature of the charges against him, including the elements of the ... charge to which he plead guilty”

Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"

In French, the defendant pleaded no contest to six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of fourteen pursuant to a plea agreement in which he was to receive no more than eighteen years in prison.

Recognizing that "the failure to obtain an express, personal waiver of the right to jury trial of prior conviction allegations does not constitute a violation of the state constitutional mandate" conferred by article I, section 16

Holding that simply reciting “[t]here's a factual basis,” is not adequate; the record must demonstrate the facts and the source of the facts, whether from defendant, defense counsel, or documents