10 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boykin v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2006Specifically, the trial court quoted Appellant's sworn testimony from the transcript of his Boykin hearing, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 240-41 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), that he had, indeed, ingested Melleril that morning but that his mind was clear. 2006Specifically, the trial court quoted Appellant's sworn testimony from the transcript of his Boykin hearing, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 240-41 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), that he had, indeed, ingested Melleril that morning but that his mind was clear. | 1 | 7 |
Skinner v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024Skinner v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 290, 294 (Ky. 1993). 2024Skinner v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 290, 294 (Ky. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2010Howard v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Ky.1989) (failure to attack validity of prior conviction when charged as second-degree PFO bars future challenge when charged as first-degree PFO). 10 The “waiver logic” discussed in Hoiuard was endorsed in Graham v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 206 (Ky.1997) and again in Commonwealth v. Hodges, 984 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Ky.1998) (defendant who had previously entered guilty plea to DUI, fourth offense, without challenging the three prior DUI convictions on which it was based, and was currently charged as a second-degree PFO, waived any alleged Boykin violati | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hodgesgreen1 sentence2010Howard v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Ky.1989) (failure to attack validity of prior conviction when charged as second-degree PFO bars future challenge when charged as first-degree PFO). 10 The “waiver logic” discussed in Hoiuard was endorsed in Graham v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 206 (Ky.1997) and again in Commonwealth v. Hodges, 984 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Ky.1998) (defendant who had previously entered guilty plea to DUI, fourth offense, without challenging the three prior DUI convictions on which it was based, and was currently charged as a second-degree PFO, waived any alleged Boykin violati | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stampsgreen2 sentences2006Fraser, 59 S.W.3d at 452-53 ; cf. Stamps, 672 S.W.2d at 339 (any error assignable under Ivey was harmless because transcript of Boykin hearing clearly refuted allegations contained in RCr 11.42 motion). 2006Fraser, 59 S.W.3d at 452-53 ; cf. Stamps, 672 S.W.2d at 339 (any error assignable under Ivey was harmless because transcript of Boykin hearing clearly refuted allegations contained in RCr 11.42 motion). | 1 | 1 |
David Wayne Baker v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Blackledge v. Allisongreen2 sentences2001Nevertheless, while the representations of a defendant, his attorney, and the prosecutor at a Boykin hearing, as well as any findings by the judge accepting the plea, "constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings," Blackledge v. Allison, supra, 431 U.S. at 74 , 97 S.Ct. at 1629 , that barrier is not insurmountable if there is proof that the representations "were so much the product of such factors as misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation by others as to make the guilty plea a constitutionally inadequate basis for imprisonment." Id. at 74-75 , 97 S.Ct. at 16 2001Nevertheless, while the representations of a defendant, his attorney, and the prosecutor at a Boykin hearing, as well as any findings by the judge accepting the plea, "constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceedings," Blackledge v. Allison, supra, 431 U.S. at 74 , 97 S.Ct. at 1629 , that barrier is not insurmountable if there is proof that the representations "were so much the product of such factors as misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation by others as to make the guilty plea a constitutionally inadequate basis for imprisonment." Id. at 74-75 , 97 S.Ct. at 16 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences2010Howard v. Commonwealth, 777 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Ky.1989) (failure to attack validity of prior conviction when charged as second-degree PFO bars future challenge when charged as first-degree PFO). 10 The “waiver logic” discussed in Hoiuard was endorsed in Graham v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 206 (Ky.1997) and again in Commonwealth v. Hodges, 984 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Ky.1998) (defendant who had previously entered guilty plea to DUI, fourth offense, without challenging the three prior DUI convictions on which it was based, and was currently charged as a second-degree PFO, waived any alleged Boykin violati 1998Still, writing shortly before this Court’s decision in Graham v. Commonwealth, Ky., 952 S.W.2d 206 (1997), the appellate panel reversed based upon the evidence that Hodges was not represented by counsel, at the time of the second and third guilty pleas at issue. | 2 | 1998–2010 |
Fraser v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2006Fraser, 59 S.W.3d at 452-53 ; cf. Stamps, 672 S.W.2d at 339 (any error assignable under Ivey was harmless because transcript of Boykin hearing clearly refuted allegations contained in RCr 11.42 motion). 2006Fraser, 59 S.W.3d at 452-53 ; cf. Stamps, 672 S.W.2d at 339 (any error assignable under Ivey was harmless because transcript of Boykin hearing clearly refuted allegations contained in RCr 11.42 motion). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gill v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Smith v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Acker v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 2001Proof of even a secret agreement has been held foreclosed on the basis of statements made during a Boykin hearing "absent extraordinary circumstances, or some explanation of why defendant did not reveal other terms." Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.