In Re Resendiz
California Supreme Court
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
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.