Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Resendiz

California Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 2001No. S078879Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BROWN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the disposition because I agree that petitioner has failed to show prejudice. I write separately because the lead opinion offers protection nobody needs, for reasons that are nowhere explained, through a method that will impose prohibitive costs on the administration of criminal justice. If we are going to cast a cloud on the validity of hundreds—perhaps thousands—of guilty pleas, we should explain why concerns about immigration entitle a defendant to multiple accurate advisements when the express waiver of constitutional rights is satisfied…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API