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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D 2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D | 2 | 4 |
United States v. James L. Harrold, Sr.green1 sentence2015(E.g., Hurd v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2010) 619 F.3d 1080, 1087-1088 ; United States v. Harrold (10th Cir. 1986) 796 F.2d 1275, 1279, fn. 3 .) These cases are not controlling here. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Court (Giron)green2 sentences1998“As a general rule, a plea of guilty may be withdrawn ‘for mistake, ignorance or inadvertence or any other factor overreaching defendant’s free and clear judgment.’ [Citations.] [H] . . . . [When a defendant] enters a guilty plea hoping for leniency which is not forthcoming . . . [the] situation has traditionally been held not to constitute a ground for the court to exercise its discretion in allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea.” (People v. Superior Court (Giron) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-798 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 523 P.2d 636 ] (Giron), fn. omitted.) Romero went too far, therefore, in di 1998“As a general rule, a plea of guilty may be withdrawn ‘for mistake, ignorance or inadvertence or any other factor overreaching defendant’s free and clear judgment.’ [Citations.] [H] . . . . [When a defendant] enters a guilty plea hoping for leniency which is not forthcoming . . . [the] situation has traditionally been held not to constitute a ground for the court to exercise its discretion in allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea.” (People v. Superior Court (Giron) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-798 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 596 , 523 P.2d 636 ] (Giron), fn. omitted.) Romero went too far, therefore, in di | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D 2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D | 4 | 2018–2019 |
Davis v. United States
green
2 sentences2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D 2019In those instances, the protective purpose of the Miranda rule is not impaired if the authorities are permitted to pose a limited number of followup questions to render more apparent the true intent of the defendant." ( Williams , supra , 49 Cal.4th at p. 429 , 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 233 P.3d 1000 .) Although officers are not required to clarify what may be a post waiver invocation, " 'it will often be good police practice for the interviewing officers to clarify ....' whether the right was being invoked." ( Martinez , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 947, 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 , quoting D | 4 | 2018–2019 |
Hurd v. Terhune
green
1 sentence2015(E.g., Hurd v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2010) 619 F.3d 1080, 1087-1088 ; United States v. Harrold (10th Cir. 1986) 796 F.2d 1275, 1279, fn. 3 .) These cases are not controlling here. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Schwarz
green
2 sentences1998It should be noted, however... that this exceptional remedy applies ... only upon a strong and convincing showing of the deprivation of legal rights by extrinsic causes.' ( People v. Schwarz [(1927)] 201 Cal. [309,] 314-315 [ 257 P. 71 ], italics added.) Again the decision to grant the motion lies within the trial court's discretion." ( People v. Castenada, supra, 37 Cal. App.4th at p. 1617 .) "Post plea remorse" brought on by dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed is not good cause for withdrawal of a plea, however. 1998It should be noted, however . . . that this exceptional remedy applies . . . only upon a strong and convincing showing of the deprivation of legal rights by extrinsic causes.’ (People v. Schwarz [(1927)] 201 Cal. [309,] 314-315 [ 257 P. 71 ], italics added.) Again the decision to grant the motion lies within the trial court’s discretion.” (People v. Castenada, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1617 .) “Post plea remorse” brought on by dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed is not good cause for withdrawal of a plea, however. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Castaneda
green
2 sentences1998It should be noted, however... that this exceptional remedy applies ... only upon a strong and convincing showing of the deprivation of legal rights by extrinsic causes.' ( People v. Schwarz [(1927)] 201 Cal. [309,] 314-315 [ 257 P. 71 ], italics added.) Again the decision to grant the motion lies within the trial court's discretion." ( People v. Castenada, supra, 37 Cal. App.4th at p. 1617 .) "Post plea remorse" brought on by dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed is not good cause for withdrawal of a plea, however. 1998It should be noted, however . . . that this exceptional remedy applies . . . only upon a strong and convincing showing of the deprivation of legal rights by extrinsic causes.’ (People v. Schwarz [(1927)] 201 Cal. [309,] 314-315 [ 257 P. 71 ], italics added.) Again the decision to grant the motion lies within the trial court’s discretion.” (People v. Castenada, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 1617 .) “Post plea remorse” brought on by dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed is not good cause for withdrawal of a plea, however. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.