Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cantu v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 16, 1994No. 1920426Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMaddox, Justice

I am pleased with the decision of the Court in this case insofar as it holds that a trial court’s failure to advise a defendant correctly about the maximum and minimum punishment a defendant can receive is not a jurisdictional defect, because the law was very confusing on this point. I am greatly disturbed about the holding that a defendant, represented by1 counsel, who pleads guilty and is sentenced within the range allowed by law, and who does not object to the stated range of punishment or ask the trial court to allow a withdrawal of the plea of guilty, or does not appeal from the judgment…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Halliday v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Bartone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Carter v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
  5. Ex Parte BrannonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1989

10 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