Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1962–1990 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Tahlyellow2 sentences1988As our California Supreme Court observed in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 130 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]: “The quoted language [in Boykin], while not establishing precise guidelines, makes clear that a plea of guilty cannot stand unless the record in some manner indicates a free and intelligent waiver of the three enumerated rights necessarily abandoned by a guilty plea and an understanding of the nature and consequences of the plea.” (Italics added.) It follows that a strict requirement that in a guilty plea procedure each of the three constitutional rights must be specifically enu 1988As our California Supreme Court observed in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 130 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]: “The quoted language [in Boykin], while not establishing precise guidelines, makes clear that a plea of guilty cannot stand unless the record in some manner indicates a free and intelligent waiver of the three enumerated rights necessarily abandoned by a guilty plea and an understanding of the nature and consequences of the plea.” (Italics added.) It follows that a strict requirement that in a guilty plea procedure each of the three constitutional rights must be specifically enu | 3 | 4 |
People v. Inglegreen2 sentences1964Under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court has indicated that such failure amounts to a free and intelligent waiver of *650 the right to representation (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 417 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 438 P.2d 577 ]).” In People v. Douglas, 61 Cal.2d 430 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 884 , 392 P.2d 964 ], a recent ease relied upon by defense counsel in oral argument, the court reversed the convictions of the two codefendants because a single public defender had been appointed, over their objection, to represent them jointly at their trial. 1962Under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court has indicated that such failure amounts to a free and intelligent waiver of the right to representation (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 417 [ 348 P.2d 577 ]). . . . | 3 | 3 |
Boykin v. Alabamared2 sentences1984Defendants retained new counsel who contends on appeal former counsel in effect entered into a “slow plea” which the court accepted without satisfying the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]. 2 Those cases make clear a guilty plea cannot stand unless the record in some manner indicates a free and intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to trial by jury and to confront one’s accusers. 1984Defendants retained new counsel who contends on appeal former counsel in effect entered into a “slow plea” which the court accepted without satisfying the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]. 2 Those cases make clear a guilty plea cannot stand unless the record in some manner indicates a free and intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to trial by jury and to confront one’s accusers. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Rizergreen2 sentences1976(In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 133, fn. 7 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; People v. Rizer (1971) 5 Cal.3d 35, 38 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 484 P.2d 1367 ].) The record shows that the trial court failed to advise appellant that if he should be sentenced to state prison he would not be eligible for release or parole until he served a minimum of three years as expressly provided by Health and Safety Code section 11379. 4 A plea of guilty cannot stand unless the record indicates a free and intelligent waiver by the defendant of the three constitutional rights specified in Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 1976(In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 133, fn. 7 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; People v. Rizer (1971) 5 Cal.3d 35, 38 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 484 P.2d 1367 ].) The record shows that the trial court failed to advise appellant that if he should be sentenced to state prison he would not be eligible for release or parole until he served a minimum of three years as expressly provided by Health and Safety Code section 11379. 4 A plea of guilty cannot stand unless the record indicates a free and intelligent waiver by the defendant of the three constitutional rights specified in Boykin v. Alabama (1969) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Searciegreen2 sentences1974The latter requirement relates to the direct and primary consequences of the plea, such as the punishment which may be exacted, and does not encompass collateral consequences (People v. Searcie, 37 Cal. App.3d 204, 211-212 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 267 ]), which could conceivably include innumerable factors wholly outside the trial court’s knowledge or contemplation. 1974The latter requirement relates to the direct and primary consequences of the plea, such as the punishment which may be exacted, and does not encompass collateral consequences (People v. Searcie, 37 Cal. App.3d 204, 211-212 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 267 ]), which could conceivably include innumerable factors wholly outside the trial court’s knowledge or contemplation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Yurko
green
2 sentences1990"Where no such showing appears on the face of the record the conviction must be set aside." ( Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 862 .) The court in Yurko also announced a judicially created, nonconstitutional rule of procedure requiring defendants to be advised of the consequences of their admissions. 1990“Where no such showing appears on the face of the record the conviction must be set aside.” (Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 862 .) The court in Yurko also announced a judicially created, nonconstitutional rule of procedure requiring defendants to be advised of the consequences of their admissions. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Mosley
green
1 sentence1971Each must be enumerated and responses elicited from the person of the defendant.” (In re Tahl, supra, p. 132.) In In re Mosley, supra, 1 Cal.3d 913 , after defendant-petitioner expressly waived his right to trial by jury, and after defense counsel and the prosecutor joined in the jury waiver, the two attorneys stipulated that the case be decided by the court upon the preliminary transcript, with the same force and effect as though the sole witness had been called, sworn and had testified before the court as his testimony appeared in the transcript of the preliminary examination. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1964Under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court has indicated that such failure amounts to a free and intelligent waiver of *650 the right to representation (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 417 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 438 P.2d 577 ]).” In People v. Douglas, 61 Cal.2d 430 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 884 , 392 P.2d 964 ], a recent ease relied upon by defense counsel in oral argument, the court reversed the convictions of the two codefendants because a single public defender had been appointed, over their objection, to represent them jointly at their trial. 1964Under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court has indicated that such failure amounts to a free and intelligent waiver of *650 the right to representation (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 417 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 438 P.2d 577 ]).” In People v. Douglas, 61 Cal.2d 430 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 884 , 392 P.2d 964 ], a recent ease relied upon by defense counsel in oral argument, the court reversed the convictions of the two codefendants because a single public defender had been appointed, over their objection, to represent them jointly at their trial. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.