Vizcarra-Medina v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
In this case, Rolando Vizcarra-Medina sought post-conviction relief based on assertions that he had not understood key aspects of his plea agreement with the State. The attorney appointed to represent Vizcarra-Medina investigated these claims and concluded that they could not be proved. That is, the attorney concluded that, whatever Vizcarra-Medina might say in support of these claims, Vizcarra-Medina could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he had not understood the terms of the plea agreement, or that he had not voluntarily agreed to these terms.
Base…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Dolchok v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
- Peterson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1999
- Griffin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2001
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wassilie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2014
- Alexie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2017
- Alexie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2017
- Gregory Marino v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2025
- John Clint Sherwood v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.