Blankenship v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAUGHTREY, Justice.
In this post-conviction appeal, we are asked once again to analyze what constitutes a “voluntary” and “intelligent” guilty plea under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). It is a question most recently treated by this Court in State v. Neal, 810 S.W.2d 131 (Tenn.1991), on which the Court of Criminal Appeals based its decision in this case, and in State v. Montgomery, 840 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn.1992). Because the petitioner claims that the opinion in Neal is in conflict with dispositive federal law on this question, and because one member…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by658 opinions
- Grindstaff v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. TurnerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1995
- Howell v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2006
- Park Place Hospital v. Estate of MiloTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- Lane v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
653 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.