Legal Opinion

Dickerson v. Vaughn

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 24, 1996No. 95-1525, 95-1353UnknownCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

In these habeas corpus cases, petitioners allege that they would not have pleaded nolo contendere if they had known that their pleas would prevent them from appealing a pretrial ruling. The state’s intermediate appellate court found that the pleas were induced by faulty legal advice by trial counsel and that petitioners were entitled to new trials. The state Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petitioners’ responses during a plea colloquy in the state trial court barred them from challenging the voluntariness of their pleas. Because established…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Blackledge v. AllisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Herrera v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Sumner v. MataSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Blackledge v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Anthony Dickerson v. Donald T. Vaughn the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania the District Attorney of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Larry Meggett v. Martin Dragovich, Superintendent of Mahanoy the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania the District Attorney of Bucks CountyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  2. State v. K. GardingMontana Supreme Court · 2026
  3. State v. K. GardingMontana Supreme Court · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API