People v. Sumstine
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*914Opinion
MOSK, J.
This case presents the issue whether a defendant whose sentence has been enhanced because he suffered a prior conviction may collaterally attack the validity of that conviction by moving to strike on the ground of a Boykin/Tahl violation.
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709], the United States Supreme Court held that even if a defendant is represented by an attorney, a court may not accept a guilty plea from him until it determines both that he is aware of the constitutional rights waived by pleading guilty—namely, the privilege against…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- In Re JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- In Re SmileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by113 opinions
- People v. WhartonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- People v. PanizzonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Jesse Acosta-Huerta v. Wayne Estelle, Warden, California Men's ColonyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- People v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.