Legal Opinion

People v. Sumstine

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1984No. Crim. 23438PublishedCited by 113 opinions

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

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. In Re JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  5. In Re SmileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by113 opinions

  1. People v. WhartonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. People v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. People v. PanizzonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Jesse Acosta-Huerta v. Wayne Estelle, Warden, California Men's ColonyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  5. People v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

108 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